It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Advice Would You Give America and Americans Right Now?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:33 AM
Duck.... and cover.... DUCK.. and cover.... DUCK. and cover....Duck.... and cover.... DUCK.. and cover.... DUCK. and cover....Duck.... and cover.... DUCK.. and cover.... DUCK. and cover....Duck.... and cover.... DUCK.. and cover.... DUCK. and cover....Duck.... and cover.... DUCK.. and cover.... DUCK. and cover....

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:13 AM
expert11, that is fair in your assessment of giving advice to America and Americans. But this is a question asking others to pitch in about what they would advise the United States to do. I can see that this requests disturbs and even frightens people. But I am truly curious. I would like to know what others in the world are thinking. I understand that my fellow Americans feel in this thread that asking for advice is possibly wrong. But, I still would like to entertain this question because I feel that those that reside within the United States should listen more and browbeat others less.

I'm Jaded, thank you for your contribution to the thread. Yes, Americans need to be educated a bit more about international politics and not believe the media so much. This is one of my problems with the United States populace. I feel that after 9/11 people are too easily led by the loudest voices. They should take a step back and use reason a lot more. It is my wish that people here ought to practice critical thinking skills when analysing events and not just "take the party line" when discussing these vital issues.

Americans being to devoted to their own interests communicates to me ones that are not fully taking their responsibility of critically thinking about government machinations within their country. They also have to try and keep abreast of what is going on internationally because other nations affect us no matter how isolated and superior Americans are brainwashed to feel.

The reason why most people repeat things that are the "party line" is that we don't embrace our thinkers in this country. We also don't trust our own feelings about situations within the nation as well as overseas. As a result, you get what you pay for when questions like these come up.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:07 AM
Whenever I see a topic such as this, it reminds me of the first presidential debate of 2004 between Bush and Kerry, when Kerry was asked:

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?"

We all remember his answer - he would put it to a "global test".

That same attitude prevails among a certain element in the US today. It's almost like we are apologizing to the world for being a superpower, and we beg their forgiveness for being so successful. We're so sorry, we will handle our affairs according to their counsel.

When was the last time the world came to us seeking advice?

Remember - nations do not have friends. Nations have interests, and if it is in a nation's best interest to give you bad advice, then they will.

For a good example of relying on another nation's advice, just look at how effective the UN is.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
It's almost like we are apologizing to the world for being a superpower, and we beg their forgiveness for being so successful.

The implication of that sentence is that "being a superpower" is the goal of all nations, so that our status as one is fully described by the word "successful."

What does it mean to be a "superpower"? It means to be an imperial power, not merely to be wealthy and powerful (we were that long before we were a superpower), but to put much of our wealth into our military, and use our military to force others to do our will.

I will certainly concede that this is very normal behavior for a nation-state that happens to be wealthy and powerful. But the U.S.A. is not a nation-state like other nation-states. Other nation-states derive their sense of nationhood from a place or a race or an ancestry. We derive ours from a set of ideals. We are not supposed to be a nation-state like other nation-states. We are supposed to be different. We are supposed to be better. Not just bigger and stronger: better.

If we apologize to the world for being a superpower, what I think we are really doing is apologizing to ourselves. Because that is not what we are supposed to be doing. It goes against every ideal on which America was founded, and therefore undercuts our national identity rather than reinforcing it as it might with some other nations.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:10 PM
Oops, I was infact talking to you TwoStepsForward. That'll teach me not to post without drinking coffee.

As I said, our choices as a nation are to remain a superpower (and lose our national soul), or to hand power off to someone else.

This must be done very carefully however. Just as American citizens did when forming their government, America must retain its arms while joining a world government. One cannot trust a government to always rule with justice, nor can he trust every citizen to obey the law. Even in a federal world, state militaries must exist as a check on the central government. I do not believe that surrendering our power (I will not say superpower because of certain implications) is necessary. On the contrary, I believe a federal world would be more likely to succeed on those terms precisely because the ability to dismantle it in case of corruption or failure would remain.

As a just national government should derive its power from the consent of still strong citizens, a world government should derive its power form the consent of still strong nations.

As for private property as regards sovereignty, legal ownership could not possibly predate law and therefore government, and that legal ownership can be no more valid than private ownership given the fact that the government derives its power from the people.

Private use of land does indeed predate government, and for most intents and purposes could be regarded as ownership, but the basis of the claim is in your presence and use.

Can I really claim something I neither possess nor control? I go fishing with friends. The water is clear and I can see a large fish. I declare it mine, I write up a title. Does that make it mine, even if one of my friends catch it?

Now let us apply it to governments agreed to by individuals. Suppose my friends submit to the law of my "government" by voting that the fish is mine. Then someone in another boat tries to catch it. Does our little boat government have any legal or natural right to enforce our law on someone who never joined that contract?

Clearly we have no "right" to, though we may very well have the ability and be unrestrained from doing so by any rule (keeping in mind that as an analogy to a country versus a sovereign individual there is not a higher government taking us out of the state of nature.

Therefore any enforcement of rights over untouched property is an act of war in my view.

The nature of this principle (based on control/use) prevents the instant claiming of all free land. Also bear in mind that by free land I am not talking about national parks and military bases. I don't know where you are from; it is possible that you see very little empty dirt where you are from. Even though I live in Southern California, I see A LOT of unused dirt- there's virtually nothing but BLM land between my house and Arizona. If you've got Google Earth, just have a look at the Eastern half of Riverside County, CA. If not, just use mapquest. A small chunk of the area I'm referring to belong to Joshua Tree National Monument, but most of it is open desert spotted by 2 or 3 dead/dying towns (Eagle Mountain, Cactus City, and Desert Center). I know what you're thinking- there's a reason that Desert Center's old name was Hell. That area is not all that different from what Palm Springs and the surrounding area once were.

The population density of the US as a whole is roughly 83 people per square mile. that's a little over a third of a million square feet a person. We both know that A. As social creatures, people are not going to just wander off into the middle of nowhere and take land for themselves. and B. Most people couldn't make use of that land on their own anyway.
This means that given the principle that one cannot claim ownership over something they don't actually HAVE, there's no danger of all land being claimed.
The practical upshot of not enforcing government ownership of empty, unused land is that the surrender of sovereignty to the government no longer empowers the government to enable extragovernmental usurpation of power, in this case through debt slavery.

In other words, getting back to my point which has become heavily obscured in the details of the supporting ideology: that governments should be empowered by a strong citizenry for the benefit of that citizenry, the global society which you propose must not have any power beyond what can logically flow from the individual to the state and upward from there, and as a result must narrow, consentual, and voidable.
If this is not the case it will suffer the same ills as national governments.
Unfortunately if this is the case, it may not be able to actually improve the international situation.

So the question becomes, would you sacrifice liberty for safety?

Only under the very gentlest conditions, in the most harmonious and benevolent of environments, are these things reliably within reach for a single person.

Those things aren't reliably within reach anywhere. I've been homeless on 3 occasions, at 12, at 14, and at 19. I was lucky in that I had resources which kept those experiences very very brief. If I hadn't, "civilization" would have been far more dangerous than the "harsh" environment outside.

The godforsaken desert won't kill a man who knows what he's doing until he either does something really stupid or until something kills off all the vegitation and trappable game. The economy will take away your shelter and your food for far more trivial reasons.

But when they did, at the same time they assumed the bonds imposed by the society to which they fled.

Almost my point exactly, with one problem. One is NOT incapable of renouncing all laws in government. One is incapable of escaping their enforcement because there is no unclaimed territory, even though plenty of it is unused. I take my lead inpart from Plato's "Dialogue of Critias"; have you ever read it?
From where do governments derive the right to rule a man against his will? Does government by consent of the governed not ring a bell? The direction of rule is determined by the majority but the majority cannot determine that any other man be ruled. If that were not the case there would be no inalienable right to freedom from slavery.

As I have said, consenting people, not land, ought to be ruled over, but realizing that this cannot be practically implemented I propose the protection of individual rights by an equally justifiable principle- the inability to own what one cannot control and therefore the freedom of undeveloped soil, thus facilitating the rejection of the contract as described in Critias.

Society is not government because it includes more than government -- however, without government, there can be no society.

Where is it written in stone that in order to associate people must enforce a common direction on themselves? In the relationships that I keep, and also in my family, there is not a group decision making process. There are reactive individual decision making processes. It is not government because it is not contractual, not binding, and not substantiated by force. I decide that I want to see my friend Dave. I call him. He decides he wants to see me too. He decides he wants to get lunch. I decide I don't have enough money to eat out. He decides he really has to eat. I decide to accompany him and have water, or I decide I'd rather not accompany him and invite him to drop by after he has eaten.

We interact, but we make our decisions unilaterally.

Second, the U.S. does not seem any longer to be able to promote our survival and comfort unilaterally as it could while we remained in isolation.

I'm going to catch hell for saying this but 9/11 was a VERY MINOR inconvenience to our survival and comfort. Overall a 9/11 scale attack represents a negligible chance of death for any given American and the introduction of a moderate fear-factor to the economy, and keep in mind that this is an abnormally massive attack. They've never managed to get anywhere close to that level before or since, even though they'd love to and have tried.

The US is fine at present as far as international concerns go. The greatest threat to Americans at present is the American government. I don't worry about things my own size. i worry about things far larger than myself.
As an American I don't fear China; we can fight them. I fear a world government.
As a person I don't fear other people; I can fight them. I fear the American government.

And you're right... I'm not sorry. But I feel as if I should be.
Again, great points.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:24 PM
I would not give Americans any advice. It has been made abundantly clear that the US will do what the US wants, and doesn't care what we think. Americans feel that the US should act on behalf of Americans.

Actually, I do have one bit of advice. Please apply the same thought process when you feel inclined to tell other countries how to run their affairs and don't get crabby when they look after their interests and not yours.

Goose, gander, etc...

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
Americans feel that the US should act on behalf of Americans.

Wow! What a concept that is. So, Americans feel that the U.S. government is doing exactly what it should - look out for its own citizens first before worrying about the rest of the world. For all of you detractors in other countries, don't you expect - no count on - your governments doing exactly the same, as in looking out for your interests first?

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:45 PM

I honestly don't get your issue. I fully expect my government to act in Canadian's best interests and the US government to do the same.

I'd hate to have seen what your post would have been like if you had disagreed with me.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:01 AM
Given that by nature human beings are gregarious cirtters that truely do like one anothers company, it follows that human beings are sensitive to and very conscious of the opinions of others and consciously seek their approval and acceptance. One might argue that humans do this out of a sense of survival and that it is more instinctive than learned. Be that as it may, there is no question that humans do seek approval and acceptance by others. It would be contrary to human behavior for the governments of humans not to do the same things.

However, given that governments, all governments, act in their own perceived best interests--whether those interests are dictated by one, or a few men, or decided by some pluralistic process--it is decidedly uncommon for men or governments to act in the interest of the greater group. The actions of both men and governments are mostly based on pure greed to the extent that we think we can get away with it. We want the best of the available food, the best place to live, the brightest, healthiest kids, etc., while governments want the most beneficial trade relations, the highest standard of living, education, health, etc. In short, both men and governments want to exercise their greed fully and still be accepted and well thought of by others--be they individuals or governments.

We, as a species, have learned over our history that pure greed (i.e., self interest) does not work very well, that we must give a little and not always take. One might argue that we haven't learned that very well and that the boundaries between giving and taking are not well defined--and one would be correct. The strengths of an individual, or a government, define just how much taking and giving have to be done to be accepted by the greater group. Weak individuals have to give more and take less--and so do governments. Miscalculations in this area can be fatal to either the individual or the government involved.

At this moment in history the United States is very strong and can thus take more and give less, but by taking more the envy, resentment and outright opposition of other governments are fueled to one extent or another. We must therefore watch ourselves closely, lest we get overly greedy and get rejected by the greater group. (Outright rejection by the greater group is almost invariably fatal). Hence the U.S. must consider and sometimes act on the opinions of others so as to maintain acceptance. The only alternative to doing so would be to incorporate all other governments into our own.

So, what I would advise, is that the U.S. be mindful that we do need the acceptance of others to survive and act accordingly. That doesn't mean we have to be loved by all, or follow everyone's suggestions, it simply means that we have to listen to the strongest, or most well thought of, of the greater group of nations and sometimes do that which we don't really want to do.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by Astronomer70]

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:48 PM
Damn people, I did not mean to stiffle the discussion taking place on this thread. Come on, post something.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:59 PM
I agree with the above. I feel the United States, as well as every other nation on Earth, has the right to do as it wishes regardless of what others may think. However they also have the right to give and recieve advice. I agree with this in principle because as has been said it is in the United State's best interests to give a little from time to time and keep the other powerful nations happy.

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:15 AM
The best advise I have;

ban/stop AIPAC, ADL and other special-interest groups from lobbying. Keep the members of these groups and B'nai B'rit under 24 hour surveillance/supervision.

AIPAC plot terror against USA;
Terror threat from government;

Probably best to take their money too so they can't bribe politicans anymore

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:41 AM
America is a Superpower but for how long... we are spending a large part of taxable private income to fund a much that we need to borrow 1 billion a day on international markets to fund ourselves.

Our legislators have written global trade treaties that force the middle class into lower economic standards, which was traditionally the strength of America. These treaties were written in the 1970's-80's, yet education budgets continued being cut through those years, so the Nation is unprepared to compete effectively in the global marketplace. Our deficits are testimony to this as well as terribly fiscal policies.

The USA embarked on ill thought out foreign policy decisions in those years that are just now coming back to haunt us; Chile, Veitnam, China, Afghanistan, Central America, Africa...Read about Patrice Lamumba in Africa, about the central american farmers murdered so the united fruit company could take over their lands, about the disposal of the elected iranian leader and installation of the Shah to further "US Interests" in the middle east.

The USA cannot pretend its actions have not harmed the world nor altered its course, we did these things, killed foreign leaders and now wash our hands clean of them....... Does anyone truly believe President Bush is not delusional..; that terrorists hate freedom..? thats laughable and ignorant. Yesterdays orphan becomes tomorrows terrorist. Thats how life works.

what advice to give America..: get out of the middle east, NOW. pack up, leave and go home. leave the people to find their own Destiny.

The USA has no right to land or political influence in the middle east. Pretending that its in our national interest will only fuel the fires of international terrorism, and is a thinly vieled justification for Manifest Destiny.

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:49 PM
Thank you all for giving your advice. I believe that since America regularly doles out advice to other nations, we do have the right and responsibility to listen to others. I admire those who actually thought about the question instead of pussy-footing around the issue. As Americans, we have to think about these things and make use of them as we will.

And perhaps with an open-mind, we can know how to urge our leaders to shift the policy in their platforms to work on the behalf of the people and not of the government.

Again, I give you my appreciation. Carry on! I'd like to read more.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by ceci2006
America and Americans are experiencing critical views not only in the United States but in the rest of the world.

What advice would you give in order for the country and its citizens to look better and gain more respect in the eyes of the international public?

[edit on 1-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Why are some poeple so worried about what other countries think of us. Who cares what they think! We need to do what is best for us and we are. When something happens in this world and people need help who do they look to? Its the United States of America that everyone looks to for help. Who else could it be? It sure as hell isn't France. This reminds my of the days and weeks after the tsunami in Indonesia 2 years ago. The entire world looked in our direction and we were already on it. American tax dollars(mine included) and American charity helped alot of people in their time of need...and not just in Indonesia either. We have a long history of helping other nations in a veriety of ways. Sure, we do things that others disapprove of but thats life. Get over it. What advice would I give America and my fellow Americans you ask? We're doing a pretty damn good job already. The only advice I would give is this: Kepp up the good job!

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:10 AM
It's amazing that whenever there is a tradgety in the world, the world turns to America for Amenricas help, otherwise they don't want anything to do with the US.

It's seems to be a bunch of 'give-me' nations out there who screw things up and then need the USA's money....not help....just the money.

The USA should cut off all aid to 'unfriendly' countries and then those countries can go somewhere else.

Of course it seems that the majority here would consider that blackmail.

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:33 AM
I think we should out of curtsey listen and exchange ideas but when the time for clear action comes and what is best for America is opposed by others, well, that is unfortunate, our goals should always be put first. So to sum it all up, listen but if push comes to shove...

[edit on 16-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by ceci2006
I admire those who actually thought about the question instead of pussy-footing around the issue.

I certainly hope you didn't think I was pussy-footing around the question. I gave the best, most useful advice that America needs to hear - Stop being hypocritical and trying to boss the rest of the world around.

If you comdemn another country for something, logic dictates that you should not be engaged in the same behaviour.

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
Centurion 1221,

You have A Roman Solider's avatar with view of America standing strong on its own with help from no one.

We know what happened to Rome and the imperialistic headstrong Romans.......!

American govenment looks out for Private business and its masters first. The public comes a distant second, same as most govenment around the world!

[edit on 16-8-2006 by 7th_Chakra]

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:56 PM

Originally quoted by Duzey

I certainly hope you didn't think I was pussy-footing around the question. I gave the best, most useful advice that America needs to hear - Stop being hypocritical and trying to boss the rest of the world around.

If you comdemn another country for something, logic dictates that you should not be engaged in the same behaviour.

Duzey, believe me. You did not pussyfoot around the issue. Your answers on this thread were concise and very accurate about what Americans need to do.

I agree with you. America does need to stop being hypocritical. The sad thing is that my country is being that way most of the time in its foreign policy. As a result, we've got a mess to deal with in the Middle East. And, as I said before, it is no secret that America is unpopular with the rest of the world because of it.

The worst attitude that America (and Americans) could take is to lord over others with what is best. People can take a look at the state of our country and see that we are not in the best position to give advice right now--especially with the state of democracy in our own country. If the national ID card think actually becomes reality, then that would be another clue to the rest of the world that we don't actually take "freedom" and "liberation" as seriously as the nation purports it to be.

Furthermore, by witnessing this week and a half regarding the "terror scare", it is no surprise to me that civil liberties were the last thing on any policy-maker's mind when they decided to clamp down on what we could bring on a plane. They forgot that sometimes that there are people who have medical conditions that might need a particular medicine (like an inhaler, for example) or a bottled water for their condition (as if their medication caused an over-amount of dehydration in the body due to side-effects).

How could we be bringing "democracy" and "freedom" in other countries, when we don't even have those same rights ourselves? If you look at the policies in the last five years in the United States, we don't even belong in the category as one of the bastions of freedom.

So, you hit it right on the mark. Feel rest assured that it isn't you. I can always count on your answers to be smart and very level-headed.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by ceci2006]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in