I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world...

follow the link below, and you will see that the world wide web, the internet in the form in which we use it, was developed in Switzerland:

www.socio.demon.co.uk...

As for A.G. Bell, he is just one example of countless inventors who made a significant contribution to our modern way of life who were not American. You should not assume that you're country is the source of everything that is of any importance or benefit to the world.

The above link should also give you some insight into the reasons for the US developing their early form of an intranet. Not for the benefit of you or myself, but as an instrument of war.

Anyway, do you have an opinion on any of the other points I made in my original post, like your glorious leader's motives for taking you to war?

for clarifying that you meant the WWW. I am fully aware of the Arpa and then Darpa roots which is what I was talking about with MIT and all. As far as Edison goes...he was an american, just born in Scotland. (We have a LOT of those here )

As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree completely that we went into Iraq for strategic reasons. I'm glad you aren't spewing the usual blood for oil routine that many others do. I do however dispute the "Empire" part. I don' t see any new american colonies being built nor do I want any.
Now I assume you are basically against the US role as the only remaining superpower and by default global cop. My question to you is this:
Would the world be a better place if we just shut our borders and became an isolationalist nation? Think carefully...

Cider, while I certainly see your points, especially about cultural adultery, do you really think the U.S. government could make Iraq a mini-me state? I don't think they any desire to be as such.

Fry2, I don't think that isolationism is a good idea for any nation, as they could get left behind technologically, or fall out of touch socially and politically. However, I feel that the American government and military throw their weight around too much, and now that they are the world's only superpower, they have nobody to keep them in check. As is evidenced by the invasion of Iraq, they have no problems with going against international opinion, and nobody seems capable of stopping them. Perhaps isolation is not the answer, especially as the USA has made a great contribution to the high standard of living we enjoy today, however, the Bush administration's foreign policy, and that of previous presidencies, has been very imposing. The US should withdraw a little from the rest of the world's issues, as they do not always have the answers.

TC, when I say "Mini-Me" state, I mean a US influenced state, which is friendly with America and shares it's values. This would be of some use to Bush, as it would extend his sphere of influence in the middle east. Hence, The Project For The New American Century, the purpose of which is to make the world an easier place for American capitalists to operate and profit. I think that the US are capable of establishing a friendly government in Iraq, though how long it would last is another matter, as the locals might very well object.



[Edited on 22-5-2003 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]

I had this saved in my hard drive. I would post a link but the article is only available in the archives for a fee.

Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order
Gary Schmitt
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2003


As the war in Iraq unfolds, the awesome military power of the United States is on exhibit for the whole world to see. Despite the real but mostly tacit support of friends and allies around the world, America is exercising its power in the face of world opinion decidedly opposed to the war. In some respects, the very fact that the United States can do so is even more confirmation to its critics around the world that American power seemingly unhinged from all restraints -- be it the United Nations or world opinion -- is as much a danger to world order as perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.


Critics of America�s preeminent role in the world, like France�s president, are quick to see the supposed problems related to a unipolar world. What they are far slower to offer is a realistic alternative. For example, for all the huffing and puffing about the need to have this war sanctioned by the United Nations, it goes without saying that neither Paris nor Beijing is especially eager to constrain its national security decisions because of U.N. mandates. Indeed, in the continuing case of North Korea�s violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, France and China have actively sought to push the matter away from U.N. consideration.


The fact is, the U.N. can only operate by majority consensus, and this means that its decisions will be governed by the particular interests of the individual member states of the Security Council -- not some disembodied, benign voice of the �international community.� As the failure to back up its own resolutions on Iraq and to act decisively in the cases of Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s shows, the U.N. cannot be trusted to be the sole arbiter of these matters.


No. The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today. Imagine a world in which the U.S. didn�t exercise this power. Who would handle a nuclear-armed North Korea? Who would prevent the one-party state of China from acting on its pledge to gather democratic Taiwan into its fold? Who would be left to hunt down Islamic terrorists increasingly interested in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Who could have contained, let alone defeated, a tyrant like Hussein, preventing him from becoming the dominant power in the Middle East? Who can prevent the Balkans from slipping back into chaos? Who is going to confront regimes like those of Iran, Syria and Libya as they rush to get their own weapons of mass destruction? Given how little most of our allies and critics spend on defense, certainly not them.


As Robert Kagan notes in �Of Paradise and Power,� his seminal examination of the growing distance between the strategic perspectives of America and Europe, the United States today is in much the same position as Marshal Will Kane, played by Gary Cooper in the movie �High Noon.� The townspeople are more than happy to live in the peace brought by his law enforcement but are nervous and resentful when the bad guys come back to town looking for him, to enact their revenge. The residents shortsightedly believe that if the marshal would just leave town, there would be no trouble. Of course, the reverse is true. Without Kane to protect them, the town would quickly fall into an anarchic state, paralyzed by ruthless gunslingers.


The simple but fundamental point is that it matters more what purposes our power serves than that we have power. President Bush made it clear in his address to the nation last week that removing Hussein was necessary not only because of the threat he poses but also because it could begin a process of reform in a region long in need of it. Cutting the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorists requires transforming regimes that possess these weapons and cooperate with or spawn terrorists.


Like the townsfolk in �High Noon,� this naturally makes many in the world anxious. Change always brings risk and instability. But the danger in doing nothing -- of pretending that the volatile Middle East mix of failing regimes, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism can be contained safely if we only let it alone -- is far greater. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on the floor of Parliament during a debate over Iraq last week, �What was shocking about 11 September was not just the slaughter of the innocent, but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000, and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists� rejoicing.�


But change also brings opportunity. The president�s decision to remove Hussein from power and his work to create a viable, democratic Iraq has already led to a number of positive steps in the region. In Iran, moderates, emboldened by the possibility of a democratic Iraq, are again pushing to reform that cleric-dominated state. In Saudi Arabia, the homeland of 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks on the United States, the royal family has for the first time begun serious deliberations with reformers on how to transform and democratize the country. In the Palestinian territories, Yasser Arafat reluctantly agreed to give up much of his day-to-day control over the Palestinian Authority to a new prime minister. And in Egypt, the government has just released its most vocal human-rights advocate.


None of these steps amounts to a revolution in the region. Nor do they mean that positive political transformation throughout the Islamic world will happen easily or without fits, starts and dead ends. However, the early signs suggest that the president is right to believe that the instinct for liberty is not missing from Middle East genes.


Finally, and lest we forget, America is employing its power in this war to free a people who have suffered under one of history�s most terrible tyrants. As New York Times correspondent John Burns reported from Baghdad on the eve of the start of the war, �Iraqis have suffered beyond, I think, the common understanding of the United States from the repression of the past 30 years here. And many, many Iraqis are telling us now, not always in the whispers we have heard in the past but now in quite candid conversations, that they are waiting for America to come and bring them liberty.� And, he said on PBS, �while they are very, very fearful of course of the bombing, of damage to Iraq�s infrastructure ... there is also no doubt -- no doubt -- that there are many, many Iraqis who see what is about to happen here as the moment of liberation.�


That�s a dream only American power can inspire.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

This article shows that the US think that the rest of the world really need them. Maybe we do, but with such strong opposition against their interference in other countries' issues all over the world, is it right for the US to get involved? It really should be up to the people of the countries affected. I think that the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans are grateful toward their American liberators, and rightfully so, but it is my belief that the US has it's own interests at heart, particularly in the recent Iraqi conflict.

The world needs a superpower to police it. I will not deny such a fact. But when the rest of the world has no influence or control over the actions of that superpower, then the people running it, and the way in which it is run, must be questioned.

We can't live with them, and we can't live without them. American governments past and present have been corrupt, arrogant and hypocritical. The rest of the world hate them, but we know we need them. American foreign policy suggests that the Americans think that the universe revolves around them, and it seems they are always trying to solve problems which are not their own.

Without America, the world as we know it could well fall apart, but the imbalance of power is just unfair. I try not to hate America, and to understand the country, but their view of the world seems to be so full of double standards and hypocrasy that I cannot. The American people are not at fault. It is their leaders, and the unelected warmongers, oil-men and capitalists who hold so much power in the country.

I suppose it would be the same no matter which country policed the world. There will always be people out to make a profit at the expense of those they can control. I cannot think of an alternative to the US being the world's only superpower, I am only expressing my discontentment with the current situation.

Who am I to try to solve the world's problems? I have only one point to make in conclusion, and that is that I wish people would think of others before thinking of themselves. Then maybe we could begin to put our problems right.

I think anybody who holds a philosophy other than pacifism should be taken out and shot as traitors to humanity.

Voice of Doom think about what you just said

It would include you

Of course it includes me. Somebody would have to do the shooting

I think it�s long past time for the left to mobilize.

The problem with the way the left is conceived publicly is that they are appear to be always willing to de-escalate violence for the sake of the argument. Somehow liberalism and pacifism have become synonymous.

The problem with the right is that they for too long have aligned themselves with the military and the Christian zealots and they think its natural. Most so-called conservatives would never set foot near a battlefield. Its easier to gang up on a peacenik over here and proudly shout their patriotism.
Conservatives, the far right, Christians and those who support the military should be tried for crimes against humanity and evolution.
There stupidity is irresponsible and dangerous. After the revolution they will no longer be allowed positions of authority in society. You are a threat to real art, discovery and truth.
While this might seem counter-intuitive to the leftists, don't worry. We can all sit back and theorize on our mistakes after the neophobes have been eliminated for good. In fact, I'll buy the beer!
Take up arms against those who propose violence! Take back what you know in your hearts is right.

This is actually HALARIOUS so you will do the killing an what does that make you???

Voice of Doom do you parents know you are on the computer?

You know, what you say might very well be right, the world may need a superpower to police it, but why us?
Why couldn't we have our government as it should be and be a nation like, say, New Zealand? You never hear of them getting into scraps and being cussed out. When it is the righteous thing to do and they are asked, they'll assist the good guys, but after that they remain cool.

Have you non-U.S. folk ever stopped and thought about the fact that it just might not be to farkin' easy being us?

Netty, find my wife and me a house. I want 5 acres of buffer between me and other people. She's an enginner, I'm an avionics tech, or a truck driver, or a cop, whichever is needed and pays better.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You know, what you say might very well be right, the world may need a superpower to police it, but why us?
Why couldn't we have our government as it should be and be a nation like, say, New Zealand? You never hear of them getting into scraps and being cussed out. When it is the righteous thing to do and they are asked, they'll assist the good guys, but after that they remain cool.

Have you non-U.S. folk ever stopped and thought about the fact that it just might not be to farkin' easy being us?

Netty, find my wife and me a house. I want 5 acres of buffer between me and other people. She's an enginner, I'm an avionics tech, or a truck driver, or a cop, whichever is needed and pays better.

TC if u try to mean "if people doesn�t like how US provides "help" to other nations, then let them take care of themselves and we take care of ourselves"

Means that u still don�t see the story, it�s more than clear what is going on, we aren�t divided because u live in the US and i live in Europe, no, because when u have to follow the policy of your country (when u even didn�t wanted to) is when u get enemies, and u hate people becuase of their way to think, or because they don�t defend "the policy", makes me sick, because people doesn�t have a personality anymore, they just follow blind the mass feelings....

Listen TC, if u think after all disscussion in ATS about US, europe africa or whatever place on earth is nice, clean and beautiful we know u are wrong, if u think US is the most free country in the world and it should teach right from wrong to the entire planet u are wrong again, this is not a reharsal, you must see all what have been disscussed here, and tell me that u still support your country after all, and that you try to see all those actions as a positive thing...
Please Tc show me what good you see the US policy, and why you don�t want to see the real bad thing, not just US but EVERYWHERE, we should be all united in our countries, side by side, against all those people on power that are making the world the worse place to live ever, and u still try to defend the tyranny the irrational thinking and injustice for all...

I really wanna see how can a person be so convinced of the lies of their own country because they do not want to face the fact that goverment doesn�t care about you and doesn�t like you...

I think true pacifists are a very damaging thing, because any country which is incapable of reacting with force is susceptible to that very tool. Force has to be acceptable but only in a few strict places, i.e. when under attack, when about to be attacked, or when the UN requests help for a country which is currently being attacked. Note that most US military interventions don't fall under these headings.

I'd also disagree with the idea that we *need* a superpower to be a global policeman. I think superpowers almost inevitably become countries which consider themselves "above" international laws. So being a superpower and a global policeman are almost mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that the US is destined to have a corrupt foreign policy, just that it does now, and it's always going to be easy for it to fall along that path.

It's totally clear that the US will do whatever it wants under the current administration, without any consideration of international law. I think that's extremely damaging for everyone, but in particular, it may prove more damaging to the US than they expect. Certainly, the US military are combating the threats observed by "The Project For The New American Century", the only problem is that they're increasing other threats such as militant anti-Americanism, even inside "friendly" countries such as France, Germany, even the UK. That's the threat that's under the radar right now, and it could do a lot of damage.

Anti-Americanism in the UK will never have any real effect until we elect a government who refuse to be an American lap-dog. That is what I hate about America. When it comes down to it, they rule my country, not our elected government.

I find their arrogance very frightening and disturbing, especially hearing Colin Powell speak of serious "consequences" for Frech and German defiance concerning the Iraqi Conflict. It is their right to oppose any war ( not that they could ever have stopped it ), and I feel the Americans have abused their power again in going against the UN and international opinion.

We cannot have a superpower policing the world if it ignores everyone else, and leaves us without a say in our own issues.

And if they really had to go to war with Iraq, Bush should have at least told us the real reason why.

[Edited on 23-5-2003 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]

True, when it gets to the stage where the Americans are not just dictating their own policy but everyone elses as well, we're all basically screwed. Especially seeing as the Americans didn't even elect that dickhead Bush. Doesn't that imediately suggest that the US government arre a law unto themselves?

Have I spoken to you, C-A? I believe I was speaking to Net Chicken about job opportunities and relocation to New Zealand. Let everyone else debate this, I'm moving.

Interpret what I said as you'd like. Answer your questions, I will not. There's no use and you're filled with too much hate.

After all the debates that have been brought to the board and all the times yyou have said what you have said, if I don't understand by now that my country is the sorriest piece of fertilizer to ever hit the planet and we do no good in the rest of the world, then I'm just a stupid putz.
There you go, that is what your response was eluding to, but polite enough not to but it that brazenly.

[Edited on 23-5-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

T-C, I agree with you, CA often makes a few good points, but ruins his posts with blind and outright hatred for everything American. All in all, I think that the Americans are a very resourceful and ingenuitive people, who have done far more good for the world than harm. However, the way the country is governed has gotten slightly out of hand. True, there is a lot wrong with America, but nobody can put the problems right unless the accept that there are so many good and positive things about the country aswell.

[Edited on 23-5-2003 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]

The 15 year old scottsman wins the prize for being the most level headed european of the day!!!!(BTW Cider, no offense with the european part )

Why thankyou Fry2, no offence taken, I take pride in being European

Quite a few of my friends here who are ex pat Brits hate being called european.
"It's British Damnit!!"
hehe