Russia Critiques U.S.

[carolaa]

Russia blasts U.S. for its domination and double standards in world affairs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_general_assembly_russia

This is the same type of thing I am hearing from more and more countries around the world. They know they can get away with it now that U.S. is faltering economically and our military is over extended. The chickens are coming home to roost.

[fccool]

The double standards are quite obvious, even to a child. One of the tasks that US took on, being a world police it is... is disarming the "hostile" nations.

Any intelligent leader would follow the example of North Koreans. The nuclear weapons possession is in fact the only remedy to the current US external politics. US will not dare to invade the North Korea in its current state, because of the nuclear consequences that follow.

Can anyone blame Iran for seeking the nuclear weapons program? If US is such a moral example, should it seek to shed nuclear weapons likewise? Of course not. So, that's where we have a delima of a police confiscating guns. If only police has guns and the supervisory power, then who polices the police?

We can clearly see the abuse of the US power for self benefit and self-preservation... yet how is it benefit the world? If the war in Iraq really helps the peace process in the Middle East... or does it further fuel the Islam-Christian conflict?

Sometimes we all should learn that old grumpy guy in the middle of the woods somewhere does not want to live otherwise. You may drag him out and dress him up in a suit and tie, but it will not change who he is... an old grumpy guy. But that's the way US is trying to spread the "democracy" around the world. They take into account what a certain amount of people want ... the view that favors the US, and then they tell that everyone else just hinder the democracy process. Now, look where the "democracy" is taking the USA today... it's near brink of moral/economic/social collapse. Can you blame other nations rejecting the kind of democracy that people like Bush are spreading? Is it really healthy?

[Dr. Shane]

This has been the US policy since the end of WW2. This is nothing new. In fact, it is very old. The only one on the federal level even talking about changing it is Ron Paul. So anyone that disagrees with this policy should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.

[fccool]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about . Why divide people into camps? It's unfortunate that Ron Paul has to run under Republican flag, and I'm sure that he is well aware that if he sheds the Republican label he does not stand a chance. And its quite unfortunate, because people that are fed up with the current state of things have only one choice - to vote for the loosing party, of leave (which is not an option for many).

How is it different from Bolshevism, where a majority party rules and dictates how it's going to be to the minority? That's pluralism at its best don't you think? Its there an "opt out" button... besides not voting?

[carolaa]

This has been the US policy since the end of WW2. This is nothing new. In fact, it is very old. The only one on the federal level even talking about changing it is Ron Paul. So anyone that disagrees with this policy should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.

Unfortunately, you're absolutely right that it has been our policy for the last 50+ years. The problem is that most Americans don't have a clue what we are doing in the rest of the world, or they just don't care as long as their own lives are peaceful and plentiful. Ron Paul got a surprisingly larger number of votes than I would have expected, but I think more and more people are becoming aware of the things we are doing and are repulsed by it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

This has been the US policy since the end of WW2. This is nothing new. In fact, it is very old. The only one on the federal level even talking about changing it is Ron Paul. So anyone that disagrees with this policy should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.

Unfortunately, you're absolutely right that it has been our policy for the last 50+ years. The problem is that most Americans don't have a clue what we are doing in the rest of the world, or they just don't care as long as their own lives are peaceful and plentiful. Ron Paul got a surprisingly larger number of votes than I would have expected, but I think more and more people are becoming aware of the things we are doing and are repulsed by it.

Our government is put into power by the people of the United States. If the vast majority of Americans want a major change as you suggest, let them vote for a candidate that represents that change. So far Americans have elected Presidents and a congress who were strong on promoting American interests around the world.

Now they have a decision to make between McCain and Obama. I look forward to seeing our choice.

Did you watch the debate? What did you think of Obama's remarks about American foreign policy? Did you hear what he said about Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, and did you agree with him?

[carolaa]

I never said the vast majority of Americans want a major change. I believe most Americans don't have a clue about what we are doing in the rest of the world, and/or they really don't care as long as their personal lives are not affected.

As I have said several times before, I am disappointed in the views of both candidates when it comes to foreign affairs.

Yes I saw the debate. I like what Obama said about trying to increase dialogue. I agree with him that we erred greatly by not going after bin Laden in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked in Iraq - which he has maintained from the beginning. I tend not to agree with either of them on Iran. And I'm still pondering what I think about Pakistan.

[John317]

It's fairly clear to me after looking carefully at McCain's life experiences and his votes in the Senate that he is truly expressing how he feels and thinks. He just tells what is really in his heart and on his mind. No hesitation.

If you go back into Obama's past, and if you watch and listen to how he speaks, I think it is clear that he is saying what he knows Americans want to hear. (Not all Americans but enough to get him elected.)

Why isn't someone like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or an outright socialist candidate the front runner?

My answer is that none of those would have a chance of being elected by the American people.

Even if I am wrong here about Obama, the main question is, why are both candidates saying what they are saying? Again, my answer is that they both know what the largest share of the American electorate want.

Obama wouldn't have a ghost of a chance if he said that he wanted to stay out of Iraq right now and also out of Afghanistan and would allow Iran to have the Bomb.

You agree?

[Bravus]

So yes, sadly, it is true that a majority of Americans are very happy being global strongmen with a double standard - or at least strongmen who don't want any other strongmen on the block.

[Dr. Shane]

I would be happy to pull all our troops out of other countries, bring them all home and use the money we are spending on defense to pay for universal health care.

However if the US wasn't on the international scene, does anyone thing we would see more wars between nations? Does the US involvement actually deter many wars from happening?

[carolaa]

Why isn't someone like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or an outright socialist candidate the front runner?

What I said earlier is that I think Americans are slowly becoming more and more aware of what we are doing in the world. I agree the majority of Americans still support candidates who will continue the status quo of relating with the rest of the world. But all I'm saying is that more people are becoming aware and not liking it as they see the results.

[carolaa]

So yes, sadly, it is true that a majority of Americans are very happy being global strongmen with a double standard - or at least strongmen who don't want any other strongmen on the block.

Oh, I sure don't want to believe that. I really want to believe that most Americans would be aghast if they knew what was happening, and would stand up against it. I do think more Americans are becoming aware, but the propaganda has been so ingrained that it is hard to overcome. And it is a little traumatic to realize that what you believed all your life is not exactly true. So it takes people a while to get it.

[carolaa]

Does the US involvement actually deter many wars from happening?

That's the big question. Supposedly, the intent of our interventionist policies is exactly that. But somehow we've managed to alienate much of the world in the process.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

So yes, sadly, it is true that a majority of Americans are very happy being global strongmen with a double standard - or at least strongmen who don't want any other strongmen on the block.

Oh, I sure don't want to believe that. I really want to believe that most Americans would be aghast if they knew what was happening, and would stand up against it. I do think more Americans are becoming aware, but the propaganda has been so ingrained that it is hard to overcome. And it is a little traumatic to realize that what you believed all your life is not exactly true. So it takes people a while to get it.

Having said that, I must say that I am frequently saddened by the number of Americans who think the strongman, double standard is just fine. I find that to be extremely shallow and short-sighted.

[John317]

As you go back into American history, who are some of your heroes or heroines and favorite presidents? Who is your favorite American writer or thinker?

[fccool]

I would be happy to pull all our troops out of other countries, bring them all home and use the money we are spending on defense to pay for universal health care.

However if the US wasn't on the international scene, does anyone thing we would see more wars between nations? Does the US involvement actually deter many wars from happening?

Shane, the entire pentagon strategies of today are based on "would have" scenarios. Are we to become a "minority report" type of preventive society and jailing people based on what they would have done?

Don't you see anything wrong with that? I hear much of Machiaveli's "prince", or Hobbes' "Leviathan" rhetoric in these ideas. Basically the idea that the "higher" moral good overshadows the "lower" one, and the lower one can be sacrificed at the altar of the "highest good". What about some basic moral standards?

Basically, the idea that American way is the best way, and we are doing a favor to everyone else by making them more American. It's neo-Emperialism. That's why USA is broke today, because it is overextended militarily.

The congress just approved a budget of a Trillion dollars for military. Don't they know how much money it is? Either they are trying to prepare for alien invasion, or they are trying to preserve superiority by means of military presence... because it's quite obvious that economy will no longer do.

[Dr. Shane]

I see a lot wrong with intervention policies. Like I already stated, I would love to see all our troops come home. We could use that same money for health care and do a lot more good.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Russia, with allies, will invade America, sooner than later. Boots on ground.

We will be as a bird, which peepeth from the dust of the earth.

rotsa ruck, guys :-o

Re: spending less on military: yeah, costs are skyrocketing and we're gonna cut our military.

I can see it now, come war, Americans waving their healthcare cards at the enemy, "bang, bang, you're dead."

Well, I guess that's not all that much of a stretch - given the seeming importance our citizenry currently ascribe to empty words... (Yikes! --Pogo)

Military connotes War. War is killing and breaking things... you can't do that with a healthcare card.

Re: we will never be able to make everybody in the world like us. We are insane and masochistic to submerge our own interests to that of others. We are obligated only to do the best we are able.

Per example: as I've stated before, we could not have done more for Saudi Arabia; yet, they have, generationally trained, funded, and sustained those who willingly die - consumed with the desire to destroy us. For those in Rio Linda, that's called 'exporting terror'. Ditto, but to a

lesser or more rational extent, even Europe - whose fundament we've pulled out the fire on more than one occassion - and continuing for the last 60 years ensuring/guaranteeing their safety from aggression (that they might have the monie$ to rebuild their own infrastructure and fund their own social programs). Tchah!

Have any of y'all been to Canada and had to listen to what they think of America? Yet we sustain 70% of their economy.

The wisest man alive sez, "CYOA."

What the blep-blep are we talking about?

[Bravus]

Does America, net, prevent more wars than it starts? It's an imponderable, because prevented wars by definition don't start. Has America, since the Second World War, generally been a force for good in the world? Hard to judge: would Pol Pot have happened without America's involvement in the region? Would the massacres in Indonesia? It's hard to say.

What is not so hard to say is that America used to be a beacon for peace and hope and freedom in the world to many of us - it absolutely was that when I was growing up. There's still some of that, but Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and rendition and a number of other things have definitely eroded that. The claim has always been to a certain amount of moral superiority - American aggression was better than other aggression because it was carried out for the common good and with a moral code. That is what has been lost. Maybe American aggression was always just aggression, but it has been particularly naked during the first decade of the new century.

(Leaving aside what I hope is a certain amount of jest from jasd when he suggests there is no relevant standard for America but brutish and unenlightened self-interest.)

[jasd]

>>Does America, net, prevent more wars than it starts?<<

That information is probably within the purview of ‘Intelligence’ – State secrets, et al.

>>It's an imponderable, because prevented wars by definition don't start. Has America, since the Second World War, generally been a force for good in the world?<<

Mais oui, but of course. Even should the factors weigh unevenly, America has done more good than any other.

>>Hard to judge: would Pol Pot have happened without America's involvement in the region? Would the massacres in Indonesia? It's hard to say.<<

C’mon, Bravus, you might as well ask me if the moon is made of cheese; or if beings ever had habitation on the moon. The latter: yes.

>>What is not so hard to say is that America used to be a beacon for peace and hope and freedom in the world to many of us - it absolutely was that when I was growing up.<<

It does not matter what nation excels – there will be others who will cultivate a dislike for that nation – envy rules.

What amazes me is the flagellation I encounter amongst Americans. Oh my, we’re so evil! Ah gee, our space shots use so much energy! Waaa, I sees a pitcher of a porpuss that cried – an it waz us, did it! :-o

>>There's still some of that, but Guantanamo<<

Most were captured while directly involved in action against our forces – like, shooting at our boys and girls on the battlefield. Actually, kudos are due America for the provision of Gitmo as residence for enemy detainees. It’s kinda like Mandela – who was caught red-handed with thousands of ordinances; yet, he lived to head So Africa. Anywhere else, he would have been summarily executed. Same’s Gitmo.

>>and Abu Ghraib<<

I guess it’s my turn to say, “Oh my! the guy had his photo taken with undies on his head!"

>>and rendition<<

Happened under Reagan. That’s decades ago – and it authorizes the search, pursuit, and capture of anyone who has killed an American citizen anywhere in the world – that that perp may be made to stand trial here in the USofA. Not a bad policy. Israel’s been doing that as long as I’ve lived and no one complains. Complaints are reserved for America. [/gobsmacked!]

>>and a number of other things have definitely eroded that.<<

The incessant litany. I say to the rest of the globe, “Why are you always asking us to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, if you dislike us so...?”

>>The claim has always been to a certain amount of moral superiority - American aggression was better than other aggression because it was carried out for the common good and with a moral code.<<

Not always the epitome of genteelness; however, when they call – we’s there – and we pay the price. No whinin’, mewlin’, or otherwise whizzing our pants... God Bless America

>>That is what has been lost.<<

That certain Freudian envy. You can’t fight that. Even the V-pill won’t help.

>>Maybe American aggression was always just aggression, but it has been particularly naked during the first decade of the new century.<<

Hey, I’m not that indisposed to a certain bit of Imperialism. Check India. They still have the British hospitals, the same rails, the same strung wire lines, the same architecture, the same governing system, the same... India benefited and still does. Likewise, with American 'Imperialism'. Most of the modernization of the Far East is due to our own sacrifice and generosity.

>>(Leaving aside what I hope is a certain amount of jest from jasd when he suggests there is no relevant standard for America but brutish and unenlightened self-interest.)<<

When I need help I want the 800 pound gorilla, juiced and mean on my side. That used to be us. Sadly, for the rest of the civilized world that is coming to an end.

Every job I ever had was provided by the enlightened self-interest of this or that person, company, or corporation.

Do you think Australia is going to do more for the indogenes - other than holding a "Sorry" day? y'know like giving them back their continent?

Would I be unwise to hold my breath?

[Bravus]

Quote:

>>and rendition<<

Happened under Reagan. That’s decades ago – and it authorizes the search, pursuit, and capture of anyone who has killed an American citizen anywhere in the world – that that perp may be made to stand trial here in the UsofA. Not a bad policy. Israel’s been doing that as long as I’ve lived and no one complains. Complaints are reserved for America.

That's not the form of rendition I was talking about. Bringing people to trial in the US is something that I'd be very happy to see. Trials for the prisoners at Guantanamo would be a great place to start. I'm talking about sending people *out* of the US expressly to be tortured.

Quote:

I say to the rest of the glove, “Why are you always asking us to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, if you dislike us so...?”

Who? When? Who since WW2 has America rescued? Name one people. (Ahmed Chalabi doesn't count.)

[jasd]

>>Trials for the prisoners at Guantanamo would be a great place to start.<<

Sheesh, isn’t it good form to hold detainees of war – until a resolution or the cessation of hostilities? Anyway, given those parameters as applying to the war on terrorism – those guys should probably be in Gitmo the rest of their lives.

>>I'm talking about sending people *out* of the US expressly to be tortured.<<

Dr Paul Joseph Goebels is alive and well in Hollywood! Ain there a song like that? Anyway, I agree that – should that be actually occurring on any scale other than minimally – it should be stopped. That said, that is in principle only – given the fact that all nations have, do, and will continue – to implement torture to an extent both large and small. It's a fact of life. Reality.

I do not condone the practice of torture other than in very severely limited circumstances: the hypothetical weighing of the needs of the many against the ‘discomfort’ of the one, or few – for example.

>>Who? When? Who since WW2 has America rescued? Name one people. (Ahmed Chalabi doesn't count.)<<

Y’know, we dumped Chalabi; and wouldn’t you know? he’s now a big shot in Iraq. Mebbe, we shouldn’t have been so hasty...

Well, the UN sent us to Korea; ditto, Vietnam - on our own nickel - at that! Few people realize that we didn’t go of our own volition but as participant in a UN ‘Police Action’ per Korea – and as an unfortunately shortsighted galumpin’ signatory to the SEATO document.

You know that I am responding indirectly. My responses are addressed toward the malcontent countries (and its citizens) of the world.

[fccool]

Jasd, the definition of a "terrorist" nowerdays is so loosely applied, yet the basic original idea behind terrorism is that it "is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". AKA... using fear to coerce people to comply. Does that sound familiar?

Secondly, you are talking about people as disposable containers that either hinder or advance a state. Who are you talking about when you say Korea, Vietnam, USA... These are imaginary constructs, borders of which are many times are drawn along rivers and shorelines.

That's why the "figting terror" rhetoric is repulsive to me, because in fact it spreads terror. Terrorism is perhaps causes less then .0001 % of deaths in the world. What ends up happening... by means of the media and govenmental reports and "alerts".... terrorism looks like the cause of all "evil".

I think that Americans need to really get out and travel a bit. Then they'll see that people around the world are not as different, and are driven by the same motives and forces. Some Muslims screaming "Death to Israel" today, is not any different from some Louisiana residents screamed "death to niggers" 50 years ago. And all of that was resolved eventually with no need for a war, or military intervention.

What we have today, is America (and much of the world perhaps) getting a Televised worldview... that looks like this:

And producers will not portray these extremists as a rogue KKK type of organization, but they put a face of entire religion on it.... and do it for political reasons.

Fear will only breed fear, and hate likewise will breed hate. Once upon a time US was above these tactics... now it's just a fairy tale of the past.

What's ironic, is these tactics fuel the rogue "jihadists" propaganda. If your house gets blown up by US soldiers... would you just sit and thank them for liberating you? I can guarantee you, that if you were in these people's shoes you will be the first one in line screaming with these radicals.

Radical "Islam" of today is a reactionary movement, just like Black panthers was a reactionary movement.

But, today we label the causes of such hatred as "what's good for them", and don't even try to understand these people. Our understanding comes from shredded video footage that only portrays "We hate America", and leaves out "here's why we hate America".

But the reality is, if we were to trade places... I suspect that the radical Christianity would be abound likewise.

[carolaa]

As you go back into American history, who are some of your heroes or heroines and favorite presidents? Who is your favorite American writer or thinker?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I guess I don't know because I don't think like that. My heroes are people like Corrie ten Boom and John Wiedner, the Underground Railroad, etc. People who risk their lives to help others they don't even know. Also, people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I don't agree with them on everything, but they are not afraid to stand up for what they believe to be right, whether it's popular or not. John McCain used to be like that.

[carolaa]

we could not have done more for Saudi Arabia; yet, they have, generationally trained, funded, and sustained those who willingly die - consumed with the desire to destroy us.

It was my understanding that we basically forced the Saudis to agree to conduct all their oil business in dollars, and they can hardly wait for the dollar to die so they can start using euros.