Printable View
Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.
Britain and America supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds and supported him right up until he upset another dictator client of ours. Over the next decade we the n proceeded to enforce crippling sanctions on Iraq which killed a million people, most of them children. We then invaded Iraq and killed a hundred thousand more people. And we wondered why the Arab world were disgusted with us and called us genocidal mass murderers after we'd done all this humanitarian intervention for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
This is all very nice and la dee dah but bears no resemblance to reality. You can not so easily dismiss the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people and the countless lives saved by actions taken in places like Iraq, and the Balkans, by then trying to infer that these Wars are somehow profitable. Ethnic cleansing is reprehensible and should be challenged anywhere. And yes there really is enough space to list the U.K and U.S hypocrisy right here in this thread, so why not delineate it and enlighten us, or is it just a fuzzy feeling that you share with Miles? Propoganda and poppycock. That is the sum of much of Miles so called facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzMiles,you are awesome. So true and spot on with people calling you irrational because your views do not fit their world view. I would argue that they're truly the ones incapable of rational thinking. We are fooled into thinking we have a "democracy" and "freedom" which is the worst part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
At least the other countries most of our population has such disdain for don't make any qualms about their position. In a country where 90p out of every £1 you earn goes to tax it's laughable that so many can smugly find fault in the practices of some of the infamous, so-called, 3rd world countries. I guess it makes us feel better.
Wars that we jump into to "liberate" the people and save their "human rights"? Yet if we were such benevolent souls, wouldn't we save millions more people by providing simple food and water to people that are starving in the world? Would be a heck of a lot cheaper than war, no? Less deaths too? Ah but I guess that's not as profitable as war.
Oh, but when another country wants to save their people from certain genocide (the Cyprus problem), it is branded an "illegal invasion"? Get the fuck outta here..It offends me every time I see my family's home, North Cyprus, not recognised as a country basically telling me that my mother should not exist right now and that Turkey should have let her be killed as part of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on in Cyprus at the time. That was apparently perfectly "legal".
There really isn't enough space to list the U.K and U.S. hypocrisy and I commend those of you who have managed to put aside their allegiances to swallow the bitter but quite obvious truth.
You do not have to be a Royalist to see the absurdity of Miles bemoaning Harry and William being gits because of not having done a part time vegetable store job or paper round. Never mind the fact that despite losing their mother in horrific circumstances* the Duke is a RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and Harry is a serving member of the armed forces recently undergoing active service in Afghanistan. While Miles teaches for a few hours a week. So who is making the bigger sacrifice?
Should Britain and the U.S have averted their eyes after Saddams Stalinist secret police lead away and killed 200 000 people? Should we have ignored him killing 5000 Kurds in one chemical attack? Or should we have just listened to the misinformed marchers and said sorry people of Iraq and Kuwait but we dare not intervene for fear of being seen as profiteers? Or does that not fit your world view ?
* Do not for one minute think that I am in any way part of the weird Diana cult that seemed to spring up after her death but the fact remains the accident of the Princes birth would have made there loss even more strange and bewildering for them, happening as it did under a huge spotlight.
.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet??? Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through???
In order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.
We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.
Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.
miles, the motivation produced by socialism is one that reduces productivity. Where people are rewarded for doing the bare minimum. Capitalism rewards those who work hard and strive to achieve new heights. If you looked at Socialism through the lens of Behavioral Psychology then you might understand how bad it is for humanity.
Lyle, I advocate socialist policies not communism. There is a massive distinction between the two. I fear your educational system has left you somewhat bereft between thy lugholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Then by all means miles, explain to me how socialist policies are so great for everyone
A free health care system is available for all. If you are rich and really think private is better then go private, but an NHS system in its traditional format is really rather good.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Socialism allows choice, but offers a fall back option for all.
The same goes for all of these things. I grew up on the NHS, I survived. I grew up in the comprehensive school system, I was great.
You study hard, you get the grades. You get sick, you go to hospital and don't pay.
What's wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfA free health care system is available for all. If you are rich and really think private is better then go private, but an NHS system in its traditional format is really rather good.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Socialism allows choice, but offers a fall back option for all.
The same goes for all of these things. I grew up on the NHS, I survived. I grew up in the comprehensive school system, I was great.
You study hard, you get the grades. You get sick, you go to hospital and don't pay.
What's wrong with that?
The idea that it's "free" is what's wrong with it miles and you know it
It is free to those at the point of use. You will get immediate diagnosis of your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongQuote:
Originally Posted by GandalfA free health care system is available for all. If you are rich and really think private is better then go private, but an NHS system in its traditional format is really rather good.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Socialism allows choice, but offers a fall back option for all.
The same goes for all of these things. I grew up on the NHS, I survived. I grew up in the comprehensive school system, I was great.
You study hard, you get the grades. You get sick, you go to hospital and don't pay.
What's wrong with that?
The idea that it's "free" is what's wrong with it miles and you know it
Mind you, the UK is becoming increasingly Americanized. I was still registered with my practice this summer and received a prescription that cost me 35 pounds. I asked to be referred to a psychologist. They said they would try, but really private was the only option. I was rejected by the NHS. They gave me whatever drugs I wanted, but the care I wanted was completely ignored. I got no help.
I find that extremely hard to believeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Z just to fit in. You people are stupid with your spelling. You can't even spell Mum. What is wrong with you? Mom? It's just stupid. Mom. Mom.Mom. Really? Not Mum. Mum.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI find that extremely hard to believeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
At least admit you are from non genocidal nations, says Mum! Oh but you aren't from non genocidal nations.
Racist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
if what Mıles ıs syaıng ıs so----that ıs pretty shıtty ındeed. Lyle doesnt belıeve ıt and I am not sure ıf those events are exactly what transpıred. Mıles can you please verıfy thıs ıs what happebned to you there? Thıs ıs really lookıng Amerıcanızed as you saıd ol boy, and ıf so ıt may be changıng foır the worse for the general pop.
Potentially, but we all know I am not, so don't be mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongRacist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I hate my country, I hate yours, therefore, I am likely more honest than you about this kind of thing.
Plus I can spell Mum, you just write as a retard would. I mean who is more advanced? me or you? Clearly me. Mom? Take some enunciation lessons too, clown.
I think people in the Middle East are generally pissed off with America because America has propped up basically every dictator and tyrant in the region for decades. If you were living under Saudi rule for instance you may be so angry with America that you fly a plane into a building.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet??? Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through???
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They're still pissed off about the fucking crusades there too Kirkland. It's not America's fault that people we are friends with abuse their power, I mean what's the solution to that problem? We throw out people who will at least not bomb us because they abuse their power and what are we left with? A population where 100% of the people hate America.....don't be simple Kirkland.
Also if the Middle Easterners REALLY wanted to be pissed off at a country they should be pissed off at England....you guys have been fucking about in that part of the world for waaaaay longer than the US has, infact you guys INVITED the United States to help put the Shah back in power in Iran....thanks England, that worked well.....twats
Lyle stop blındly defendıng America -- we know you are American ;)
Actually most of the great innovation in the world is done through the private sector not public. Green energy does have large amounts of government subsidies and our return is abject failure. Government's picking the winners and losers makes you the citizen almost always the loser. The fact that you are advocating the government to pick economic winners/losers just shows your hypocrisy considering how you rail against corporations and banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIn order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.
We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.
Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.
You would never point a gun at me and steal my money to pay for your healthcare or school so why do you feel it is ok to empower agents of the government to do so? You can pat yourself on the back all day about how great your system is but in the end it is predicated on coercion and the threat of violence against your fellow man. The decent and humane thing is to make society voluntary not coercive.
Korea would never have developed had the government not taken it by the reigns and carefully chosen the most effective ways to grow. Samsung and LG dominate because of the support they were given by governmental policy. These corporations dominate the entire globe now. The same means of growth is true of many countries, including America. Where did the Internet come from? Apple? Microsoft? No, your very own military industrial complex. Plenty of innovation comes from government sponsored means.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieActually most of the great innovation in the world is done through the private sector not public. Green energy does have large amounts of government subsidies and our return is abject failure. Government's picking the winners and losers makes you the citizen almost always the loser. The fact that you are advocating the government to pick economic winners/losers just shows your hypocrisy considering how you rail against corporations and banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIn order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.
We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.
Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.
You would never point a gun at me and steal my money to pay for your healthcare or school so why do you feel it is ok to empower agents of the government to do so? You can pat yourself on the back all day about how great your system is but in the end it is predicated on coercion and the threat of violence against your fellow man. The decent and humane thing is to make society voluntary not coercive.
Picking winners doesn't mean you lose if you have a job and are putting food on the table. In fact, modern economies with high unemployment are proof that unchecked corporatism means that jobs are gone and won't be coming back. Governments can protect an economy for the greater good of all. When we talk of banks too, we should also point out the deregulation that caused the crisis. You need government control. Personally, I am in favour of a nationalised banking system.
In terms of your view on healthcare, you pay taxes, you pay private firms money for healthcare coverage, what is so different a nationalised health care system? At least that is avoiding the profit motive of the private firm. You are anti government influence, but your entire career has been based on state subsidization. That is what I see as hypocritical and contradictory. If you really were against governments being involved with things, then you would never work for them or use their services. It sounds cool to be anti government, but in practice nobody is.
As soon as a saw the tread title, I realised that the possibility of pictures of tits would be quite low.
oK @onoQuote:
Originally Posted by ono
Miles, much like people confusing socialism and communism you are confusing corporatism and capitalism. Corportism is only possible when the government leverages the the market in favor of an industry.
The difference between the NHS and a private system is choice and freedom. We have a mix in the US of private and public and isn't really a good example for free market economics. Regardless if you don't see the difference in the government forcibly taking ones income to pay for a service and citizens involved in voluntary exchange I dont' know what to tell you. At the end of the day your policy preferences are based on mob rule empowering government agents to steal peoples income on their behalf. If your are ok with a worldview based on coercion then ok. I prefer a society based on voluntary exchange. I'm not anti-government at all I just don't think it should pick winners/losers or coerce its citizens. Unlike many functions of the government the military is actually an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution.
Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They're still pissed off about the fucking crusades there too Kirkland. It's not America's fault that people we are friends with abuse their power, I mean what's the solution to that problem? We throw out people who will at least not bomb us because they abuse their power and what are we left with? A population where 100% of the people hate America.....don't be simple Kirkland.
Also if the Middle Easterners REALLY wanted to be pissed off at a country they should be pissed off at England....you guys have been fucking about in that part of the world for waaaaay longer than the US has, infact you guys INVITED the United States to help put the Shah back in power in Iran....thanks England, that worked well.....twats
Middle East people are pissed off at England too. We get terrorist attacks over here as well. They're just not as pissed off with us as they are with you because in the living memory of the people who live there America is 99% responsible for hundreds of millions of them living under tyrannical regimes. And are you trying to introduce moral relativism into the argument here?
I'm pleased to see you're still unbiased as always. America can't make everyone happy, but it doesn't keep people from wanting that to be true. If we leave we're bad if we stay we're bad if we kiss their asses we're bad if we tell them to fuck off we're bad if we buy things from them we're bad if we DON'T buy things from them we're bad. The way you talk everyone in the Middle East is a slave to capitalism....which isn't the case at all. Were it not for oil (that EVERYONE buys not just the US) the Middle East would be no different than it was the days before T. E. Lawrence. I'm not going to call the people there "savages", but they aren't far off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI'm pleased to see you're still unbiased as always. America can't make everyone happy, but it doesn't keep people from wanting that to be true. If we leave we're bad if we stay we're bad if we kiss their asses we're bad if we tell them to fuck off we're bad if we buy things from them we're bad if we DON'T buy things from them we're bad. The way you talk everyone in the Middle East is a slave to capitalism....which isn't the case at all. Were it not for oil (that EVERYONE buys not just the US) the Middle East would be no different than it was the days before T. E. Lawrence. I'm not going to call the people there "savages", but they aren't far off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Who's responsible for the other 1% Kirkland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
You know what all your scenarios have in common, Lyle?
They all involve U.S. intervention.
Just maybe... if the U.S. would not intervene in other countries' issues that do not present a threat to U.S. citizens... some of this hatred would not exist. Anticipating your response, you'll surely mention problem areas like North Korea, for example. But surely you are aware that North Korea right now is not viewed favorably by the global community, because it IS perceived as a threat to other countries.
The trick here, one so "skillfully" practiced by George W, is to learn to separate those issues to require U.S. intervention, from those that don't. Historically, the U.S. intervenes way too much. Cut that to a minimum, and the hatred will naturally decrease.
The problem is that the us govt and its people see a fucking enemy aorrund every fucking corner.
On every corner and now in every home. It is essentially a fascist state. Barring a moustache and a uniform, an American leader is essentially no different to Nazi Germany according to Nuremburg and UN principles and now they really do spy on all you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Global dictatorship is now aplace.
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by gandalfon every corner and now in every home. It is essentially a fascist state. Barring a moustache and a uniform, an american leader is essentially no different to nazi germany according to nuremburg and un principles and now they really do spy on all you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Global dictatorship is now aplace.
The west in general. Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions you keep dodging. If you want to argue about just how much America is to blame for how it's hated in the Middle East fine, but give specific answers to these questions at the same time. Here they are again, for the third time :Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWho's responsible for the other 1% Kirkland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?
The US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Fuck, I'm gonna quit typing the same shit over and over again, and just cut and paste previous posts until I get some kind of response. Or do you (Lyle) only discuss foreign relations with Kirk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
You know what all your scenarios have in common, Lyle?
They all involve U.S. intervention.
Just maybe... if the U.S. would not intervene in other countries' issues that do not present a threat to U.S. citizens... some of this hatred would not exist. Anticipating your response, you'll surely mention problem areas like North Korea, for example. But surely you are aware that North Korea right now is not viewed favorably by the global community, because it IS perceived as a threat to other countries.
The trick here, one so "skillfully" practiced by George W, is to learn to separate those issues to require U.S. intervention, from those that don't. Historically, the U.S. intervenes way too much. Cut that to a minimum, and the hatred will naturally decrease.
Anybody hear something?
You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
You and Kirk get into some heavy-duty arguments, with multiple charts, figures, and whatnots being zinged back and forth. I tend to keep my arguments more generalized.
On U.S. foreign policy, my only point is that sometimes the best policy is no intervention at all. It is my humble opinion that the U.S. needs to pick and choose a little bit better where it intervenes and for what reason. This way, the U.S. won't be faced with choices about whether or not to leave "X" dictator in power, whether or not to use military force, when to leave and when to stay... and numerous other decisions, which yes... are usually unpopular no matter WHAT they are.
This is a delicate balancing act. We are no longer in the days of the Cold War. We no longer have the specter of the Soviet Union aiming their missiles at us. There are less instances where the U.S. "has" to intervene to protect Americans' way of life. There might be some instances where political and economic interests are skewed to seem like national security concerns.... and this is exactly what gets us in trouble with the rest of the world.
Yes, the U.S. is still the world's greatest superpower. But it's no longer a matter of "who cares what the rest of the world thinks." Thinking like that is not generally acceptable among great and open minds.
We can no longer afford fiascos like the search for the famous WMD. The world's not that stupid, and it offends other countries' leaders that the U.S. would think that.
They are both Colonialists. One having battled the other not to be colonized.
You are appeasing US foreign policy too much, Tito. America is really no different to Nazi Germany in that it invades countries without due process. These are the kinds of war crimes that Nazi's were hung for at Nuremburg. If you apply the same rules to the US then it is a war crime state and the leading proponent of international terror. There are no two ways about and Britain is equally responsible. Even in the case of Libya Obama should have been impeached. There was no due process for the US contribution.
Then you factor in policies such as extraordinary rendition, being able to kill anyone anywhere, Guantanamo, torture. America is a brutal and fascistic state and the level of disrespect of human rights and international law is unprecedented. One shouldn't excuse what is so appalling. You try telling the family of a loved one killed by a drone that it isn't so bad. You try telling the tens of millions killed in pointless open and secret wars since WW2 that it is just misunderstood. You try telling those suffering under dictatorships supported by the US that life ain't so bad.
It is a horrible country and global opinion would largely agree with me. You cannot argue with polls showing that most Euroeans regard America is the greatest menace to world peace. America must be so misunderstood. Those Arabs that agree must be so deluded. America could never wish harm upon the globe on an unprecedented level.
I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.
The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.
But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.
But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.
The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.
But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.
I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:
The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.