Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where would the world be without the US?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Before you were brainwashed and your judgement clouded and compromised by the American education indoctrination and propaganda, maybe you can learn something about American History.
...
A world without USA may still not be a heaven, but it is certain we would not be living in a place resembled so much to hell as we are today.


[edit on 11-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]


LOL!!!!


Do you write comedy professionally? That was quite funny!




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   
lol i will take that as a compliment

but perhaps you just realized you skipped reading about 95% of the entire text?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
You mind telling me exactly what in our education is what you call "propoganda"?

Free trade benefits everyone who participates. Here is something on how NAFTA improves benefits for everyone who is involved in free trade. And with the inclusion of labour law provisions, some argue that labor rich countries could benefit from it.
www.state.gov...
fpc.state.gov...='NAFTA%20labor%20laws'

While it is true that the WTO does hurt some of the poor people. What country ever became more prosperous without trade? NONE!!!

It is impossible to have a society that doesnt have poor and homeless. Its a fact of life. Whether they got there by their own hand, bad luck, or lack of education. Even with all the social programs we have here in the US, wich some feel perpetuate part of the situation. Social programs are a good thing for our poor, but it should be more focused on getting people dependent on themselves and not government. That is how you reduce poor populations.

During WW2 the UK and France needed those weapons, we sold in massive ammounts for massive sums. Ever hear of lend-lease? It was about getting war materials there, by selling, lending, leasing, giving, it was by any means necessary.
en.wikipedia.org...

And again I ask for proof of these "cold hard facts" that are censored here in America. Dont make claims like this without providing evidence for them.

As for we not caring less if Europe was conquered by Hitler. Thats BS. Your forgetting that Germany declared war on the US, 3 days I believe after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Your forgetting that the US entered the war in 41, not 44 when overlord happend. The US was involved in the North Aftican Campaign with the British(you know Monty and Patton) to push the Afrika Korps out of Africa and that led to the Invasion of Italy after that, it was our first door into Europe. Planning for Overlord began a year and 3 months(in March fo 1943) prior to Overlord, two months before the Allies had taken Tunisia, the last bastion of the Afrika Korps. It was already planning this to open up a third front the Germans would have to fight(Eastern, Southern, and Overlord would open the Western).

Your assertion that we waited till it was not possible for England to acheive victory is false, as I just showed above. Know the history before you make assumptions like that.

As for we only joined to save our economy, that is only partially correct. Read this, I'm not typing it all its too long. Programs instituded by Presidents Hoover and FDR were already getting us out before the war.
The war kick started it.
www.bergen.org...

Your forgetting that we lost people in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Its not just their people. And how is it the USA's fault for a Palestianian blowing himself up and killing others, thats his decision and no one elses. Do you believe in personal accountablity for your own actions?

So youre saying that Russia only wanted Poland? Then why did they have Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany as their satellite states?(as well as try to take Afghanistan and controlling Kazhakstan) The allies who controlled the other three parts that Germany was divided up in were given back to form West Germany.

Russian Military began a great Buildup of Military after WW2. I dont know what you mean by they were too devestated to do any kind of Political and Military expansion when that is exactly what they did in forming the Warsaw Pact and by supplieing aid to the communits in China. Geese, have you been living under a rock? As for their military they built up a massive Nuclear force, had more tanks than NATO

In the 1970's when Breznev came into office he talked peace with the west while at the same time building up his military during the so called "Detente"(or relaxation) of the cold war. It was the Soviet Military expansion that crippled their economy. And what you said about Kruschev is true, he wanted better relations with the west and was taken out of power for it by his own people.(except for during the Cuban Missile Crisis whcih caused his foreign policy to fail.)

The state of Israel was not created by the US, but by Britain, they were in contol of Palestine during this time, not the US. Get the facts straight.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Peaceful Coexistence, Kruschev wanted Peace, but the Politbureau is the one wtih the Power in the Soviet Union, not the President. If you had said that the Cuban Missile Crisis was over the US placement of Missiles in Turkey, youd have a valid argument there, but you didnt so whatever. But dot give me the crap that the Soviets Wanted peace, at least not the Politbureau, they wanted domination, plain and simple.

The US did sign the Kyoto Protocols but have not rattified it. And Austrailia didnt sign the thing at all.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Are you sure the world would have less poverty if not for the United States. The US gives more aid to Africa, including more aid involving AIDS, to Africa than any other country on the Planet. We also have troops there distributing food and supplies. Missionaries from the US teaching children how to read. We give vaccinations and other medical assistance.
fpc.state.gov...

I guess you already know where I stand on your last statement you made. No need for me to type anymore.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by lepracornman



Let's see what Canada has contributed to the world...........................

I'm sorry I lost my train of thought thinking but getting no answer to the previous question. I'd guess about as much as Australia and New Zealand would be about right.




1: have you even reasearched about what AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND have actually contributed to the world

2: if you hav'nt how dare you even say that if you hav'nt even reasearched or even remotly glimppsed at what we have done? huh?

3: one of the various reasons why the world dislikes is that some americans don't even bother to look at the rest of the world and what they contribute


I just get a kick out of stirring the pot... I don't really mean any of the we are better than you rhetoric. But I am serious about the fact that if you won't do something (or drag your feet about getting something done) then move and let someone more able do it. Case in point, anti-terrorism. While I admit to some successes by europeans to respond to local incedence (sp?) or abroad in territory they confiscated in empire building, they have not addressed it as an entire nation has and brought it to the forefront of international awareness. What country do you ask? Two guesses. Ok one guess.

I loved Europe when I was there. I have never been to either Aruba, Australia or Canada but I'm sure they are grand.

What erks me about this whole thing is just the lack of good sense and the red tape of getting anything done. Back a hundred years ago people weren't so squeemish to torture and interogation to get the job done. Why now, why all of a sudden is the US the bad guy in the media for getting done what others don't have the nerve for?

The reason for the chest beating is simple a defense response to any/all attacks or percieved attacks. Just as you are proud of your miriade of countries let us be of ours. We are a young nation. You have your day, let us have ours. If we want to empire build give us our due. We have earned it in American blood, even as some of your countries did in your heyday (sp?).



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Dude the US aint empire building. Name one place the US has under Colonial rule. By Colonial I mean there are Americans making laws for people of another Natoinality.(Dont say Iraq, they got their own government and legislative bodies) I mean like when America was a colony of the British.

EarthUnificationFrontier, what did you think of my history lesson here.

[edit on 12/12/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
OneGodJesus:

Let's see what Canada has contributed to the world


No, let's see what the TOPIC is called. It's about the USA, not Canada. And pardon me if I'm not surprised that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the country right next door to you.


If we don't stop the bad guys you keep letting in, we wouldn't need to go anywhere.


It's our country. We can let whoever we want in. If they decide to go into the US and kill people, that's your problem. They still have to cross the US border so if you can't catch them there, you should try harder.

Canada is jealous of the USA like a Rhodes Scholar is jealous of a severely retarded person with Down's Syndrome. We wish we could be as ignorant and blissful as "y'all".

As to all this internet garbage: Who invented the Internet? CERN? Were they all American? 3rd generation? 1st generation? Absolutely no help from any other countries, eh? LOL. You people ought to USE the internet to fix your own sad assumptions.

EarthUnificationFrontier: Great post!

ludaChris:

Free trade benefits everyone who participates.


It benefits the richer, more powerful countries. Why do you think that Central and South American countries are so resistant to the WTO and their ilk? Because they're loco?


Are you sure the world would have less poverty if not for the United States.


Positive. You're the richest country in the world, right? How many people are malnourished and starving to death TODAY in your country?


The US gives more aid to Africa, including more aid involving AIDS, to Africa than any other country on the Planet.


But as a percentage of your GDP you actually only give a fraction of what most countries do. You rank about 80th on that.


Name one place the US has under Colonial rule. By Colonial I mean there are Americans making laws for people of another Natoinality.


Hawaii. Puerto Rico. The American Virgin Islands. Guam. American Samoa.

How's that?

www.gwu.edu...










[edit on 12-12-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Did you read the link I posted for that Jakomo, I guess I wasnt specific enough in what I said. There are benefits in trade, I didnt mean it to sound as if it is completely beneficial. But international free trade would help most countries. Open markets produce more revenue than closed markets wouldnt you agree. A free trade agreement helps eliminate red tape and tariffs that occur when two countries trade, maybe thats why these countries are poor, they need to open up their markets to allow more exchange of currency and products.

How can you be so positive that the world would be more impoverished if there were no USA. You can use the argument that we dont give the highest percentage of our GDP to aid in Africa, but is it not still the largest amount of monetary aid. That alone makes your point there moot. Here is the US aid figures for Africa.
www.usaid.gov...
www.usaid.gov...
www.usaid.gov...

Here are poverty numbers for 2004.
www.census.gov...

Hawaii for one is a state. Though its common knowledge it was an illegal overthrow, so I can give you that one I guess but I'm being generous.

But an official appology was written by President Clinton on that issue in 1993. Making it no longer an issue.
en.wikipedia.org...

Guam is a territory, under the UN list of non-self governing terrirtories. Their economy is based on tourism and the US bases that are there. They have US citizenship under the Organic act of 1950 and it also set up a civilian government for them. They do not pay taxes and recieve millions each year from the US in aid with no need to pay it back.
en.wikipedia.org... -disputed article
ns.gov.gu... -this one is more reliable

In American Samoa, another territory, they have their own representatives and are self-governing. They are US nationals, but not citizens.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Virgin Islands was purchased from the dutch during WW1, the people who live there were given US citizenship in 1927. They have representation in the US congress(in commitee votes only), they can vote in presidential primaries but not elections. They elect their own local representatives.
en.wikipedia.org...

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated organized self-governing territory. They have US citizenship and they elect their own officials. and there are those who wish to reamain a common wealth, and those who would like to become a full fledged state of the US.
en.wikipedia.org...

4 out of 5, pretty good I'd say. Considering all are self governing or have representation in Congress, it really doesnt sound like colonialism to me.













[edit on 12/12/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 12/12/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Ludachris: Good response.

I included Hawaii in there because there are many Hawaiians who feel they SHOULDN'T be a state. That they should be allowed to secede since, let's face it, none of them are remotely American and the mainland is many many miles away from them.


Open markets produce more revenue than closed markets wouldnt you agree. A free trade agreement helps eliminate red tape and tariffs that occur when two countries trade, maybe thats why these countries are poor, they need to open up their markets to allow more exchange of currency and products.


Yes, IDEALLY free trade works. Unfortunately, you find that the larger countries (and corporations) tend to dominate. Because the larger countries CAN. Unfortunately the smaller countries suffer.


How can you be so positive that the world would be more impoverished if there were no USA.


I can't be 100% positive, but I believe that the money from the US would be distributed more equally than you do there. There is a HUGE gap between the haves and have-nots in the US. Isn't it something insane like 9% of the population having 80% of the wealth? Nice for the 9% but kinda crappy for the rest.


You can use the argument that we dont give the highest percentage of our GDP to aid in Africa, but is it not still the largest amount of monetary aid.


If I make $90,000 a year and I give $10,000 to charity, and Bill Gates ALSO gives $10,000 a year to the same charity, who among us is actually making a sacrifice? You see what I'm saying?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Ludachris: Good response.

I included Hawaii in there because there are many Hawaiians who feel they SHOULDN'T be a state. That they should be allowed to secede since, let's face it, none of them are remotely American and the mainland is many many miles away from them.


Open markets produce more revenue than closed markets wouldnt you agree. A free trade agreement helps eliminate red tape and tariffs that occur when two countries trade, maybe thats why these countries are poor, they need to open up their markets to allow more exchange of currency and products.


Yes, IDEALLY free trade works. Unfortunately, you find that the larger countries (and corporations) tend to dominate. Because the larger countries CAN. Unfortunately the smaller countries suffer.


How can you be so positive that the world would be more impoverished if there were no USA.


I can't be 100% positive, but I believe that the money from the US would be distributed more equally than you do there. There is a HUGE gap between the haves and have-nots in the US. Isn't it something insane like 9% of the population having 80% of the wealth? Nice for the 9% but kinda crappy for the rest.


You can use the argument that we dont give the highest percentage of our GDP to aid in Africa, but is it not still the largest amount of monetary aid.


If I make $90,000 a year and I give $10,000 to charity, and Bill Gates ALSO gives $10,000 a year to the same charity, who among us is actually making a sacrifice? You see what I'm saying?


Yes, not many people think about this, Hawaii is the most remote population center on the plantet. I never heard they wanted to seceede though. Its not so much the corporations, its how the trade is done, labor rich nations(such as Mexico) vs. capital rich countries(the US0). It makes trade cheaper to conduct, and the countries use whatever resource they are most abundant in. Such as the Mexicos large workforce. See what I'm sayin, it is complicated, I dont fully understand it yet, but I'm trying to get it down. There are always ammendments and changes being made to the trade aggreements to make them more worker friendly. Unfortunately, what you say is probably true. I look at it like communism, looks good on paper, but when the wrong people get in control it ruins the whole thing.

I saw somthing on the AIDafrica website, that said if every country would contribute .07% of their GDP, that aid to Africa would increase $114bln. Amazing number, considering today its like $25bln a year I believe.

That would mean we would be moving to a socialist economic model, something most Americans wouldnt want. Lower wages for everyone, YAY!!! To me that is not the answer, but I posted this somewhere before. Instead of more government programs, we should be focusing on getting people off government dependency. This would be a big step in reducing poverty, and in my opinoin if there are any more government programs for the poor, that should be the focus on them, not handouts.

I see what you are saying, and I do agree that more should be given. And I actually found more is, this is along with the links I posted about Africa in my last post.
usinfo.state.gov.../wf-latest.html




[edit on 12/12/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
The importance of free trade is debatable, as obviously it can ameliorate and dilapidate individual groups of people respectively. However, do you really think capitalism and globalization are bringing more good to the world than harm when currently about 30% of the world's population, if not more, are still living in absolute poverty?

And why are you so certain that without free trade the world would not be as properous (minority parts of it) as it is today? As far as i concern, socialism and communism both accentuate on equality of individuals and a classless society. Isn't that much more fair of a civilization than US and the rest of the capitalist nations?

There is an existing sucessful example. Cuba has probably the best, if not one of the best health care provided to the people in the world. Its poverty and homeless percentage of the general population is also one of the lowest. Simply the Communist government is capable to accommodate shelters and financial assistence to the people in need, they are not forced to be outcasts of the society, living in the streets and eat McChicken for every meal.

Free trade and globalization do benefit to people, but dare i say mostly to the middle class, cooperations, multi-naitonals and conglomerates. It is commonplace for them to exploit and abuse labour and cheap natural resources in the third world countries and manufacture goods into much higher value for profit maximization.

Even if free trade is not entirely deleterious to the entire world, the signicance of its existence is still not as essential as posters such as zoro said it would be, as other economic systems would have easily substitute its place.

Despite the lend lease which France and UK were to repay America back through the 50s and early 60s, US already received an incredible sum of cash in the 40s. Further more, American Cooperations exploit this opportunity of desperate lack and need of weapons and war machines in Europe, to say that America benefit "well" financially in WWII selling arms to Europe would simply be an understatment.

It was true that through the New Deal, America was already recovering its economy in the 30s. But Nazi domination in Europe would undoubtedly set back the resurgence, and in the long run, as i have mentioend, the US would have lost its European market for its comodities, which was a large majority fot its exports revenue.

America only joined the war after Pearl Harbour. And the Nazis declared war on US, following suit on Japn, due to the fact they were in the Axis alliance. Would have US directly involve itself in WWII if Japan and Germany did not show any agression towards it? Historians today still find this to be a controversial topic.

You simply did not read carefully of what i have posted. I did not state that US created Israel, i wrote: "Israel is another matter created by US". Britain was the one that composed the formation of Israel, but US was greatly in favor of this idea due to the fact it was reluctant to accept all the Jewish refugees into its borders.

With US backing, the UN partitioned Zionists to set up Israel, and it created the foundation of the Middle East conflicts that still exist today.

During the Cold War, US simply intensified the tension between Israel and the Arab world. In order to gain a foothold in Middle East and gain sphere of influence in the region, ever since 1949 US has been giving financial aids and military supples woth of value to the thousands of millions annually. To this day, USA has already granted Israel $49,064.20 million dollars of military supplies.

Progressively, Israel used these weapons given to them "generously" by the US to invade rest of Palestine that was not given to them as part of the Israel borders by UN, including West Bank, Golen Heights and others. Conquest of these areas drove, an estimation conducted by UN, 726,000 Palestinians into refugees without a place to call home. It was these victim's desperation for TRUE feedom and indepence that drove them to become freedom fighters against the Israel rule, and to the west known as terrorists. Now go ahead and tell me that US did not contribute or in the least extent in some ways responsible, to a news boradcast about a Palestinian terrorist blowing himself up in an Israeli bus you and I watch on the TV today.

Yes, USSR formed the Warsaw Pact, and controlled satellite states in Eastern Europe. But if you have any knowledge in Cold War history at all, you should also know that NATO, was created in 1949 April 4th with support of Washington. And only after West Germany was drawn into NATO as well, did USSR tolerated no more and created the Warsaw Pact in May 14, 1955 as a defensive responce to this aggresssive move by the west.

It was clearly stated the reason for Warsaw Pact: "The situation created in Europe by the ratification of the Paris agreements, which envisage the formation of a new military alignment in the shape of "Western European Union", with the participation of a re-militarized Western Germany and the intergration of the latter in the North Atlantic bloc, which increases the danger of another war and constitutes a threat to the national security of peacable states."

Factually, most non-American historians agreed that during the Cold War, USSR was often casted in the role of defensive and passive, while the America the ambitious and paranoid aggressor.

The death of Stalin and the emergence of new Russian leadership, Malenkov, Molotov, Beria, Bulganin and of course Khrushchev brought about de-stalinization, and the policy of Peaceful Co Existence. Russia was reforming and undergoing a new mood of openess and tolerance to the West. Go read the book Thaw by Ehrenburg published in 1954 for evidence.

Although reasons for the Peaceful Co Existence was partly beecause Khrushchev firmly believed that the contest between Capitalism and Communism was unecessary, because according to the Marxist theory two revolutions in a capitalist society world would occur, in the end the workers were remained in control of the country and a communist governing body would be set up.

Despite this, it was still geniune that USSR wanted peace. As seen from Khrushchev's recongnition of Israel and West Germany in the late 50s, and in July 1955 USSR actively arranged a summit meeting in Geneva through encouragement from Churchill. And later a second more direct meeting with Eisenhower in Camp David. Krushchev further showed its sincerety for peace by publicly condemning Stalin's rule of Russia in a government meeting.

Nonetheless, it was USA that refused USSR's peace offer.

The third meeting that was about to beging in Paris, was melt down as in May 1960, U2 spy plane was spotted flying over USSR air space and the Russians shot it down for self defence. If the U2 plane was never sent to spy on Russia by US, the Cold War coming to an early end would possibly reliaty.

Originally, US was in fear of Communism taking over the world through Eisenhower's Domino Theory. However most historians nowadays find it to be ridiculous, as examples such as China proved that the establishment of Communist government there had no influence over its smaller neighbour such as India, Japan, Taiwan etc.

I also find it rather laughable that if the stupidity of believing in the Domino Theory was not enough, the Americans went to the extent of fighting proxy wars in Asia through always and continuously supporting the corrupted "democratic" governments:

Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam
Signman Rhee in South Korea
Jiang Jieshi in Formosa

As for War in Vietnam, even the Americans within did not believe in the cause of fighting against Ho Chi Minh, who was a fair and just ruler of the Vietnamese people comparing to the corrupted Ngo Dinh Diem, who the US supported.

Massive demonstratoins were held throughout US in the 60s, draftees burnt their draft cards openly, in May 1969 The New York Times broke the news of the secret bombing of Cambodia. President Nixon ordered the FBI to wiretap the telephones of four journalists and 13 government officials to determine the source of news leak.

The most infamous and bloody demonstration in the war was perhaps the Kent State Protest. 4 students were killed by the Natoinal Guard, Alison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder. In which two were bayonetted and two were shot.

In the war, there are unbelieveable inhumane acts conducted by the Americans. In 1968 Marh 16, more than 500 people, many of them women and children , were slaughtered by G.I. without valid rules of engagement.

Within the country, Black americans where denied right to vote, hundresds of paratroopers were needed in 1957 to allow black children to enter Little Rock High School in Arkansa, in 1958 a 9 years old black boy received a 14 year prison sentence for merely kissing a 7 years old white girl in North Carolina, in which the white girl admitted she was in love with him.

Now, with all these examples, US's emphasize and criticism on human rights on communist china, north korea and USSR seemed ironic, hollow, and idiotic even.

Who ever said there are no evidence of American industries abusing and exploiting labour in Latin America during the 50s to fund the Eisenhower Doctrine? US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, who was also a commited and famous Anti Communist politician and took a main role for refusal on USSR's Peaceful Co Existence Policy, apparently owned a food company in Guyanna, underpaying the labour there to overwork for profit maximization with the lowest production costs possible. The Rockefeller family also did the same, and if you even request evidence for proving the Rockefeller to be exploiting South American labour, you are just proving and displaying your ignorance and absurdity.

What good is signing a protocol if it is not ratified and taken into action?? And don't attempt to misdirect the blame onto Aussies with this one, they are not the one adding 40% more pollution to the planet yearly.

The US isn't "colonizing" or building an empire. Of course not silly, Americans have a different name for it, such as :"Protecting freedom, liberating the people" and so forth. In countries such as Iraq US "liberated", it would set up a pro-western democratic puppet government through variety of means. Keep in mind that right now the US has over 200 active military bases all around the world for "protection of global peace and freedom'.

I still firmly stand my ground.

Without the US, the world today would be without the Middle East problems. Without the US, the world today would be 40% less polluted annually. Without the US, the world today would be without the forgotten deaths in Vietnam and Korea and other wars waged by USA against communism. Without the US, equality of every human being, just and fairness in the world may actually have a chance to be.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
It is debateable, its a tough issue to debat. I know because I'm doin it right now haha. But the issue with free trade is we havent been able to see it done in the poorest of poor countries just yet. Take CAFTA for example. It openly admits that because of the nature of the treaty, that little benefits will reach the rural(ie poorer areas of the country), but that it will increase foreign investment into these countries markets and governents. They will have to liberalize their their rural industries such as agriculture and livestock, which wont be a bad thing for these countries at this point. The combined GDP's of these Central American Coutries is .5% of what the US's is. Implementation of CAFTA is defined here:
www.ustr.gov...
www.ustr.gov...

I do agree that it is common place for corporations to exploit people. It is wrong and its one thing that needs to be reformed here in the US should be the extermination of corporate welfare, as that is taking tax payer dollars from away from where they are really needed. I'm a true conservative in the sense that I want less government, more money should be coming down to the local level of governments because thats where prosperity starts, on the community level.(my opinion) Of course I dont know much about economics or even business and this treaty is simply too much to read let alone understand for me. But the initial clauses of CAFTA do look promising for these small economies and I believe that opening their markets will result in greater economic prosperity for not all, but most of the country. You can equate these countries GDP's to my home state of North Carolina's for god sakes, they need more openess in their markets.

I am assuming(and I try not to do this very often) that you belive in the Marxist system of economics. And your example of Cuba is a good one, but of all the places it has been tried before ie. Russia and its satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea(Questionable to me because of the despotic nature of their government, more of a military dictatorship than anything). None of these systems worked except for the one example you mentioned which I will get to in a moment. This is why China's economy has be indoctrinated with market economy principles and look whats happening, its almost blossoming. As I said, with what little I know about economics but with Cuba they seem to have taken the system that no one seemed to be able to get right and done it. I congradulate them on that, but I think this shows the limited ability of a marxist economy to work only an a smaller scale(not on the scale of a large country like Russia or China).

I do have to agree with you to a degree on the economic reasons for entering the war, and the fact that due to the isolationist policies the US had before WW2 we probably wouldnt have entered the war with Germany or Japan without their aggression, would you have? WW2 brought about the most drastic foreign policy change in history, it was a 180 for the US and completely new territory for the country. I think one of the problems for the time and a factor in Vietnam was the fact that our country had basically just began using this global foreign policy and the lack of experience in this area helped lead to that conflict. Korea on the other hand was the right thing to do in my opinon, these people wanted to govern themselves as is their right and we helped them maintain that sovereignty and continue to do so(corrupt as you say they were or not). Would it be better if they were all under current North Korean rule, looking at the conditions of that country today theres no way anyone could agree to that.

As for the Isreal issue, theres another thread I'm involved in right now that is very interesting, join in if you like. No need to start a new issue here, we have plenty to chew on.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NATO was created out of desire for peace in Europe and yes to counter the new Soviet threat. Most of he hostility toward Russia came from its earlier Stalinist Policies. Such as when he threatened to take Czechoslovakia and blockade Berlin. Harry Truman too was an advocate for peace before the Russians were. And I dont fault anyone for that but Stalin, as I think you will agree.
history.sandiego.edu...
Here is an outline of major events/policies throughout the Cold War its very interesting, but it doesnt give any info on the arms race from the Russian side.

Here is a more modern view of the Cold War, stuff we know now, that we didnt know then. It gives a good description of the ideology of the times from both sides.
www.columbia.edu...

Kruschev and the other leaders you mention may push for peaceful coexistence but the continued build up of arms paints a different picture. I'm not sure if it was Kruschevs doing, my bet is it was the Politbureau, who had total control of the country anyhow, including the Military. I dont know much about the other guys you mentioned, but I'll do some research. If he wanted so much peace then why go as far as supporting a communist revolution 90 miles from the US coast, something that he knew would not help the peace process. The Soviets also had ICBM's before we did, we only had Intermediate range missiles in 1957.

This article suggests Kruschev was not as peaceful as you make him out to be.
www.ccaurora.edu...

Time to move one, Im gonna have a whole page if I keep going haha.
The Vietnam war was a terrible thing, but if the Soviets were supporting the North, were we to leave the South to be routed, no. The attrocities of Vietnam to me were the cause of kids being put into a place he didnt want to be, and the anger and emotinal distress that came from having to kill. It took a cold hearted person to go over there, kill a bunch of folks and come back emotionally unscarred. But it happened and no one can deny that.

The things you mention to were wrong, but those were inernal issues of which you speak. THey do not affect the rest of the world, and today things are different, if your black, you can vote, interracial date, go to integrated schools, and have all the same rights. Thats not to say racism is over with because it most definately is still around, but its no longer just a white thing. Its become cross racial, in that every race has their issues with another, certainly not where we need to be.

That is true, while Austrailia does have the percapita largest emmissions of any country, they would still meet the protocols if they did sign it. But things like the Kyoto protocol have or are being implemented on the state level. Our constitution gives the states the power to decided if they want to implement such things or not.

These bases are also a major economic advantage for the towns around the world that the US has bases in. Dont give me the unsubstantiated BS that the US is in control of all of these places because if you cant prove it, then it doesnt matter what you say. If thats your opinion at least say it is your opinion when you say it so there is no confusion between facts and what you believe. In these places where the US has military bases, how many of them have current conflict besides Iraq and Afghaninstan?

If you wanna talk about Israel and the US influence on the ME conflict start a new thread and Ill be happy to join you. And please feel free to join me in the one I linked you to, its very interesting as well. This debate has to end somewhere so you can have the last word, been fun looking forward to more.





[edit on 12/13/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
How about a world with free and happy people.
will we get that, no

why?, because of GREED GREED GREED

It's greed and control freaks obsest with controling us like little robots,
Greed generates control , control generates madnes like you have a little toy and it does not do what you want it to do and you just go mad

Little obsest dirty man are running the world today with a agenda for us
poverty and problems wich will result in control.

The world is a sad place, when you look at it it's not a very hapy place
that's cause we alowed our selfs inside the game and we did nothing about it, just discover something like a invention that would change the world and you will be hunted down
so they can put it in to military use.
So do not invent anything please for your sake and well being.
If i would be a inventor i would invent freedom cause it does not exist

It would be a grate inviention i would say it would triger all difrent things
like free energy, change in the economic sistem, and people smileling more.
Are you crazy NO NO NO
we cant have that can we it would runin the economy that have guided us so good in to paradise just look around you
it's wonderful people are dieing of starvation , it's hard inof to find a job,
there is always the army you can join and brake u'r neck for a few dolars
and if you die you die for the weapons industry and oil industry


Momy i want to be a soldier when i grow up and join the special forces
so i can be a happy pulling triger idiot and you will be proud of me momy for serving my country ohh i mean for serving the weapons and oil industry.

Being a patriot also means not only going at war but doing comunity work
helping others like crossing a old lady across the street and doing something for your country help build things help people and it does not involve M16's F22 raptors and army boots all the time, something you people forgot.
To you patriotism is going to war in some faren land and blowing things up and killing people.

Zoso we live in a controled invirorment and a fake taste of freedom
try finding out something that is amesing and you will find out that you are not free.
Further more they have the power now to trow: you, your wife , mother and father in jail thanks for the supreme power they have now and all this with out any justification no corts no nothing.
United States is among countrys like iran, china and other places that have executions.
I was discusted today when i saw on cnn the execution of that guy in california , he was talking with the guards like helping them to find the
vain so they can insert the needle iv in him, he was geting frustrated.

It's known that there have been executions of inocent people first they were executed and after that ammesing found out to be inocent

I have to say that i cant hate united states simply cause i would be hateing the world, united states is made out of europians africans muslims asians and all sort of kind so i dont really got anything agaist united states
but i do got isues on this administration that is runing it makeing bad choices for you, me and the rest of the world.




[edit on 13-12-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Zoso we live in a controled invirorment and a fake taste of freedom
try finding out something that is amesing and you will find out that you are not free.
Further more they have the power now to trow: you, your wife , mother and father in jail thanks for the supreme power they have now and all this with out any justification no corts no nothing.
[edit on 13-12-2005 by pepsi78]


Get real man. As long as me or anyone else in my family doesnt start contributing to Helzbola or consorting with known terrorists, we are not going to jail. Please give me one example of how you are not free in right now.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Zoso how about you try counter my points of why free trade and capitalism are so significant, so great, and why is it even legit of being a protector of human rights, peace or freedom when USA contradicted itself in so many occassions throughout history.

You know people don't just hate you for no reason, they don't just wake up one morning and say to themselves, :"Hmmm, guess i will start hating and critizing USA starting today!"

And the so-called "terrorists" don't just strap themselves with C4 and decided to bomb USA just because they were bored and had nothing to do. Don't you realize USA is the only country threatened realistically by the terrorists? I don't see Canadian planes being hijacked, or Chinese, or France. How about you think about that

[edit on 13-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Zoso how about you try counter my points of why free trade and capitalism are so significant, so great, and why is it even legit of being a protector of human rights, peace or freedom when USA contradicted itself in so many occassions throughout history.

You know people don't just hate you for no reason, they don't just wake up one morning and say to themselves, :"Hmmm, guess i will start hating and critizing USA starting today!"

And the so-called "terrorists" don't just strap themselves with C4 and decided to bomb USA just because they were bored and had nothing to do. Don't you realize USA is the only country threatened realistically by the terrorists? I don't see Canadian planes being hijacked, or Chinese, or France. How about you think about that

[edit on 13-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]


I don't respond to your free trade rant because its total crap. It gave me tired head half way through. Are you trying to say free trade is evil. I think its way down on the evil list. And why do so many hate us, probably jealousy. Its the same in dominant sports teams. The guys on top are hated by all those who dont have a vested interest in the team. And the US is the only country threatened by terrorists. Do i even need to respond to that. The US is realitive new comers to terrorists attacks. Terrorists attack because they are evil, ignorant(the suicide bombers that is), and brain washed. Bottom line. Would you as a US hater, conduct a suicide bombing in the US. I think not, because you are a decent, inteligent and free thinking person. If you want to be a communist or utopianist or whatever they call themselves these days go ahead. Create your own utopian society and if it is succesful it will be the 1st. But eventually, the ones who are doing all the work will resent the ones who are slacking and guess what you got. Free trade and capitalism buddy. Aint it a beautiful thing.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
zoso you can't argue for jack, it is apparently clear you have no knowledge of American and world history or any understanding of economic concept.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I can argue when an arguement is proper. Just because you can spout out policies and doctrine and boringly long posts does not mean you have anything to say. You basically took up half a page trying to convince me would should all work together and pool our resources. This does not work. I assume because of the language of you posts that you are not from the US. Thats cool, no problem. But as soon as you bring up that utopian crap your arguments are null and void. You are obviously very learned in history. You make your statements very eloquently and i respect that. The US is formed on the basis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines. ANYBODY who wants to work can work. Those who CHOOSE not to, live off the friuts of those who do labors. But they are stuck at the bottom and will remain there until they decide to fend for themselves.

Bottom line is i did present a rebuttal to your post, albeit short, sweet, and to the point. I expected you to say what you did in your reply, since both you and i know that i am right. You tried to discount my arguement as sophomoric and misguided, thereby discrediting me and my post. It is you now who dont want to argue. Truth hurts



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
The US is formed on the basis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines.


Yes it was formed on that basis but it doesn't work that way any more. Capitalism to the nth degree has spoiled the ideal. Yes the US is great where money is God. I know, I shouldn't use a religious reference but it is the thing that powers the US. Free trade, yes it works great, just look at how the US follows the rules -- the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the US, US have been fined for not following their own trade agreements with Canada by international court. Have they paid fines, no. Have they followed their own contracts, no. We had to negotiate a new one because the old one wasn't being followed--by the US. Yes I am not from the United States either but at least I can string a few intelligent sentences together, and I can spell.
go buy a dictionary and learn to use it.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lepracornman
the u.s.a is like every other country and like most countrys it has high national pride,but they have the resources to show how "powerful" they are,but brace yourself you arogant bunch of pounces you are normal i know shocking is'nt it?,you are nor better or worse your equal to the rest of the world,to europe,africa,latin america,ocenia it must come as a shock but maybe when gw goes you might be able to understand...


or will your pathetic national pride get in the way?





[edit on 13-12-2005 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Is this the kind of response you were looking for:

Without the United States there would be a group of countries that owed their generation to France, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Denmark and other European naval nations along the Eastern side of North America. On the Western Side there would be a group of countries that were generated by China and Japan and Polynesia. Intermixed and in the interior of the North American continent below the 49th parallel would be a nation of native peoples that control the interior of the continent from the Rocky Mountains to the eastern shores of the Mississippi River. A substantial Russian influence would be in what is currently known as Alaska. Where Canada is now would be a country that owes its generation to primarily British and French settlers and native North American peoples.

Or maybe something more like this:
I think that the United States of America had a good influence on the rest of the world because it aids other nations in times of trouble. We have a large enough armed force to be able to assist when times of unrest cause the natural government to collapse and a state of civil war or anarchy erupts. Our country was formed on the principles of freedom and equality that were so important in the French Revolution that we realized these principles would form the basis of a solid government and we try to share these principles with the rest of the world to keep it and other nations safe and secure. Our trade policies benefit everyone, even if they don't think so because if they weren't any good then they would collapse. We try to teach other nations that equality is important. If you are not getting what you need then start a revolution like we did with Britain and free yourself from tyranny. If you need help we will help you, unless you think that we are tyrannical and then you will be wrong because you will see that our trade practices and government work well because they work and everyone loves us.

Please set your parameters for debate. What type of a thread do you want if you start with talk of 'bashing' in your first line then give us fair game rules to know how we can talk about it without getting so irate, at least on my part.






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join