What gives the US special status?

Originally posted by manxman2
so your crediting the states with biulding those cities yes...??

Well the world wouldn't of been able to have any Shiny cities [ours included] if we continued to have major global conflicts on par with or worse than WWII now could we? Have you ever once stopped to consider that all those little wars were fought to maintain a larger peace and prosperity for all?

That had not all those little wars been fought that their underlying causes may have boiled over into major global conflicts taking down more than just the US, USSR, China and Europe but the entire world? Does the phrase containment ring a bell?

Maintaining the peace [World Police] again has created the environments in which such prosperity can flourish and grow. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Not to mention the 14 trillion dollars a year worth of business the US consumer and commerce was generating. Where did you think all that money was being spent and on what?

No, not credited. It's obvious we will never see that happen. But we Helped. You have to ask yourself where exactly did the bulk of the post WWII business come from to either build or rebuild most of those cities and then set those countries on their course of self sustaining growth and prosperity come from?

Joe Sixpack Tax Payer buying their products and services.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by manxman2

ok i will try to be more politcally positve taffy .. or is that mr tworivers.

It's Whiwa Hotehi - "The Heart of a Wolf". What can I say? Dear old dad had a strange sense of humor.

the truth is the brits still see america as their child.

thats the bond that will never be broken as mostly your british genes living abroad.

Yeah, I can see that. The problem appears to be that you seem to be intent on spanking us for perceived "injustices" done to the other kids of the collapsed Empire.

Sorry, dad, he hit me first!

reply to post by Mokoman

you really believe that the US did such great things for the world and that we all should be very greatful. Which brings me back to my very first post in this thread where

Nobody has to be grateful toward the US for whatever help the US has provided. Being grateful comes from the heart and not all fully understand the sacrifices that the US has made for other countries. Fortunately, there are still people around like French President SARKOZY, to educate people on why they should be grateful to the US.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who – with their hands, their intelligence and their hearts – built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." The America we love throughout the world, is the country which has this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance, since in America, failure is never definitive.

Here, in your country, in this land, the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. This is what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom. America taught them how to practise it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it threatened. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible. And this is what gives you a special responsibility.

What made America great was her ability to transform her dream, the American dream, into hope for all mankind.

The men and women of my generation remember the Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a devastated Europe. The men and women of my generation remember the Cold War, during which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World against the threat of new tyranny.

pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr...


Likewise, the US should also be grateful to all the nations that are watching out for our backs as well.

Originally posted by Mokoman
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

SNIP

I am eager to hear what they have done for the rest of the world. With this I mean the actions undertaken with the intent of helping / supporting others and not accidental positive influences coming forth out of selfish goals.

I have to wonder if there are any examples of actions undertaken for another, which didn't also result in some benefit to the one providing such action? Countries don't do things for free and if providing aid packages in the spirit of humanitarianism also carries some sort of "string" whether it be kickbacks or whether it be promoting/supporting a situation that is to benefit (in some way) multiple nations, what's really the problem with that? Is it just that it goes against the Utopian ideals?

Example: EU is leading the fight in aid and development to African nations. No doubt about that. However, each country involved in this scenario has an agenda and with it, strings attached to the aid/monies provided.

Pre-Cold War

Tracing the historical developments of bargaining on multilateral aid policies within the EU Council, we find that member states had highly conflicting preferences about who should benefit from EU multilateral aid. France and Belgium hoped to focus development policy on their former African colonies. Germany and the Netherlands, on the other hand, wanted to pursue a more global and humanitarian approach to EU development policy. The official development goals—which have not changed over time—reflect these conflicts.

The accessions of 1972 (United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark), 1981 (Greece), 1986 (Spain, Portugal), and 1995 (Austria, Sweden, Finland) led to a dramatic increase in heterogeneity among members about the goals of EU development policies. The United Kingdom, for example, wanted to expand the group of associated countries to include its former colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. It generally favored a more global approach to EU multilateral aid. The Mediterranean countries, on the other hand, favored the development of Latin America, while the Nordic countries aligned with the German and Dutch approach of pursuing a more general humanitarian approach to EU development.

Post Cold War - Focus shifted to economic development Central and Eastern Europe to the detriment of the African nations.

The fall of communism increased the CEE countries’ share of EU aid at the cost of the poorest countries in the world. These developments did not only imply declining aid shares but also a decline in total aid levels to Sub Saharan Africa until EU Eastern enlargement in 2004.

Here

Point is, every nation in this world is looking out for its interests while also helping others and why shouldn't it be like that?





[edit on 16-10-2009 by LadySkadi]

not you folks personally taffy or anyone else .. your as helpless to change things as any other unelected individual.

we aint american haters just foriegn policy despisers.

Originally posted by manxman2
not you folks personally taffy or anyone else .. your as helpless to change things as any other unelected individual.

we aint american haters just foriegn policy despisers.

Aha... finally something I think we all can agree to...

reply to post by manxman2

we aint american haters just foriegn policy despisers.

Sure did fool me. You sure come across as an American hater.

Hell you even slammed Britain a few threads back when said you don't care what happen to them if it all turns to crap.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by manxman2
not you folks personally taffy or anyone else .. your as helpless to change things as any other unelected individual.

we aint american haters just foriegn policy despisers.

Aha... finally something I think we all can agree to...

i can assure you theres several other things we could reach agreement on lady.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by manxman2

 

we aint american haters just foriegn policy despisers.

Sure did fool me. You sure come across as an American hater.

Hell you even slammed Britain a few threads back when said you don't care what happen to them if it all turns to crap.

i dont care if it goes pear shaped for them why should i .. im not a british tax payer so it doesnt bother me.


as for fooling you about american hater .. you were obviously to willing to be convinced .. hate is a word i never use.

however the only people on this thread to use the word have all been american.

probably a well used thread destroyer when you yanks hear to many home truths.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Rebuild Europe - paving the way for the EU .. can you hear yourself? It's like you are saying the EU is a good thing? Do you believe that?

Well, would you rather have the EU, which was rebuilt by the US and her allies, or a Europe completely overrun by the Soviets at the end of WW2?

Originally posted by Amagnon
I would like some clarification of what exactly was paid for by the US taxpayer here?

If you mean China's growth - nope that was paid for by Chinese workers.

Who buys stuff made in China? I think the US is the biggest importer of their goods.

Originally posted by Amagnon
You should also rightfully claim responsibility for Chernobyl - which was 99% likely due to US espionage.

Oh really? Of course it's the fault of the US. Surely couldn't be the fault of a crappy Soviet designed nuke plant, right?

Originally posted by Amagnon
These conflicts were mostly imperialistic US aggression - for profit, and to protect corporate interests.

Not like the Soviets trying to expand their own empire, huh? I wonder what they were doing in Africa, then? Just trying to even out their tans?

Originally posted by Amagnon
This idea that "aid" is a benefit is .. not quite right. Surely you know why and how aid is administered?

You make it sound like no other country in this world acts like this. Every country that supplies aid to another is usually looking for something in return. If you don't believe that, then you're living in a dreamworld.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by jerico65]

reply to post by manxman2

however the only people on this thread to use the word have all been american.

probably a well used thread destroyer when you yanks hear to many home truths.

You know, being from Texas I don't take too kindly to being called a yank. :shk:

It's not my fault that you take our sense of pride for our country as arrogance. It's kind like a football game, soccer in your world. You take pride in your team, criticize your team, but still defend your team. At the same time, you talk trash about all the other teams.

It's not my fault that you disagree with our government taking and making leadership decisions in the world. That's what you call policing the world. I, nor you, are privy to the classified information government collects that ultimately leads them to the steps they take when dealing with foreign issues.

It's not my fault that you see us as a greedy nation and that greed is the reason we go to war or release our aggressive nature. Funny, how you criticize all the war profiting but yet have nothing to say about all the profiting that happens in peace time. You mean to tell me that corporations, governments, and businesses don't take advantage or financially rape people during times of peace.

reply to post by jam321


You know, being an American Yank I don't take too kindly to being called Mate :shk:

reply to post by Mokoman

And regarding your claim of China's economic collapse... their external debt is only a fraction of that of the US. Please show me where you get your info so I can be convinced.

China’s Internal Debt Problem

The Chinese Ministry of Finance reported that aggregate national debt balance rose to 3.26 trillion yuan ($407.5 billion) in 2005, but it fell to only 18% of 2005 GDP of 18.23 trillion yuan ($2.28 trillion). This reflects the effect on economic policy analysis with dynamic scoring in which the growth impact of the national debt on the economy can outstrip its nominal rise.

That was in 2006 and current figures are a bit hard to find. Regarding business loans in China that have gone bad, George Friedman in his 2009 book "The Next 100 Years" says:

"Not surprisingly, a remarkably large number of these loans have gone bad- "nonperforming," in the jargon of banking. The amount is estimated at somewhere between $600 billion and $900 billion or between a quarter and a third of China's GDP, a staggering amount.

reply to post by plumranch


China's hidden debt problem

Despite robust growth, the world's third largest economy is potentially deeper in debt than originally thought.

2009

BEIJING (Reuters) -- On the surface, China presents a fiscal study in contrast with the United States, keeping a remarkably low ceiling on debt even as it spends its way out of the financial crisis.

But when Chinese leaders meet their U.S. counterparts this week, they should pause for reflection before venting any criticism, because hidden liabilities mean China's books are uglier -- potentially much uglier -- than at first sight.

reply to post by Amagnon

Certainly the US campaign against the USSR - political, and espionage was successful - but the system was unsustainable - it was a rotten, top down model that relied on brutality and murder. You should also rightfully claim responsibility for Chernobyl - which was 99% likely due to US espionage.

The US espionage/ Chernobyl disaster connection is an interesting one for anyone planning a novel. What do you have to prove that? I can't find a shred.

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Mokoman

And regarding your claim of China's economic collapse... their external debt is only a fraction of that of the US. Please show me where you get your info so I can be convinced.

China’s Internal Debt Problem

Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group.
Timothy Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the New York Federal Reserve Bank

Your link failed to convince me of anything.
Please show me some data which is up to date / reliable and not susceptible to propaganda. I do see your reasoning though... Oh, this guy has a Chinese name so he must know what he's talking about. And the second source in your article... Federal Reserve Bank?
You actually used this article to gain credibility for your story? It's not even on topic.
The article discusses POSSIBLE flaws or risks in the system. It has no basis in truth but is based on guesswork. Since it's now over 3 years old, has China collapsed? Are they on the brink of doing so? I don't think so.

The Chinese Ministry of Finance reported that aggregate national debt balance rose to 3.26 trillion yuan ($407.5 billion) in 2005, but it fell to only 18% of 2005 GDP of 18.23 trillion yuan ($2.28 trillion). This reflects the effect on economic policy analysis with dynamic scoring in which the growth impact of the national debt on the economy can outstrip its nominal rise.

That was in 2006 and current figures are a bit hard to find. Regarding business loans in China that have gone bad, George Friedman in his 2009 book "The Next 100 Years" says:

"Not surprisingly, a remarkably large number of these loans have gone bad- "nonperforming," in the jargon of banking. The amount is estimated at somewhere between $600 billion and $900 billion or between a quarter and a third of China's GDP, a staggering amount.

A lot has happened since 2006. End of 2007 China's debt had shrunk to $363 billion / 5.11% of GDP, what's your point here? I will say it again, almost 20% of the world's entire population lives in China. Yes, their debt has increased though that's hardly strange seeing the global climate and they are a global player. They do however not need the US importing stuff in order to flourish. They do not need anyone, though of course they will most likely make use of any opportunity they come accross as they have done in recent years.
Have you ever been to China? Have you ever been outside the US even?

I completely fail to see your point though. We are discussing whether or not the US has a special status in the world as some proclaim and we now we're discussing China's financial situation (which by the way is a lot better than that of the US, you're just too much indoctrinated to see that)
Now I get the feeling you are trying to show me China's imminent demise in order to defend your country's miserable situation? Please correct me if I'm wrong there. I'm not attacking the US, I'm just saying it's not as great as you think. Pointing out other's flaws or weaknesses is hardly a strong case for your cause.

I am not a US hater. I don't hate anyone, but am just of the opinion that it's time you guys start adopting a more realistic and broader view of your own position in the world, as percieved by your fellow humans (in my case a European)
Because you get so personally offended when others do not confirm your greatness, you automatically think we hate the US and that we oppose you in some way. This is all not true. I stand by my point that we are all equal. I am not better than you in any way. My country is not better than yours. And you will have to accept that yours is also not better. It's a silly concept and all it leads to is these endless discussions where you fail to even see the underlying message.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Mokoman]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by plumranch

 

China's hidden debt problem

Despite robust growth, the world's third largest economy is potentially deeper in debt than originally thought.

2009

BEIJING (Reuters) -- On the surface, China presents a fiscal study in contrast with the United States, keeping a remarkably low ceiling on debt even as it spends its way out of the financial crisis.

But when Chinese leaders meet their U.S. counterparts this week, they should pause for reflection before venting any criticism, because hidden liabilities mean China's books are uglier -- potentially much uglier -- than at first sight.

Did you just link me a CNN article? And you probably believe what they say....
Sorry, didn't read it cause of BS filter.

CNN is not a source for information, it's a NWO brainwashing apparatus.
Now I understand where this whole discussion is coming from. How was the live feed of the bombing of Baghdad? Awesome display of power, yeah? Did you show 'em justice? Those sandn*****s?

This is going nowhere, let's end it right here. My appologies if I offended anyone, it was my intention to share a different view on the world and humanity as a whole.
As said in my last post, pointing out other country's weaknesses hardly helps your case. I never said that any other country is better than the US, the China example was merely brought up to see if you were willing to acknowledge that others can do well too. Apparently this is unacceptable for you and you immediately go all-out in trying to prove how weak they actually are, despite the appearance of the opposite. Let's hope it's not too late for you to wake up.

Did you just link me a CNN article? And you probably believe what they say.... Sorry, didn't read it cause of BS filter.

No sorry it's not all about you!



[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

they dont want to know moko .. they have more empathy for a dog stuck in a well in kansa than for those innocents with their intestines spread across a street in iraq or similar theatre of operation by u.s. munitions.

it is that simple they do not understand the outrage ordinary people feel the world over as they never get to see the results of their conquestorial activities in their media.

your final conclusion is exactly where this thread is heading nowhere
they truly dont know which i find reasonable or they know and just dont care so the wakeup bit is wasted on them.





[edit on 17-10-2009 by manxman2]

reply to post by LadySkadi

I have to wonder if there are any examples of actions undertaken for another, which didn't also result in some benefit to the one providing such action? Countries don't do things for free and if providing aid packages in the spirit of humanitarianism also carries some sort of "string" whether it be kickbacks or whether it be promoting/supporting a situation that is to benefit (in some way) multiple nations, what's really the problem with that? Is it just that it goes against the Utopian ideals?

I hear you on this, Lady. And you're right.
However, I never claimed that my or any other country set out to selflessly help others. Unfortunately there are very few, if any who actually do. Not too sure at the moment but I believe it was Slayer who claimed that the US did selflessly and at their expense help others and started showing all kinds of graphs with how many billions of $ were 'donated'.

All I'm saying is, this doesn't mean anything. It was not done with those other people's best interests in mind, it was for personal gain as you also confirm. These stats were brought into the picture to falsely give us the idea that the US was donating billions to the poor and needing. A lot of the misery caused in the world is done by US bombs hitting civilian targets. It is only fair that they pay the most in support donations, as they also cause the most direct damage. And when we talk about donations from the corporate world (or the celebrities) they only do it cause it's a trend and you need to donate in order to fit in with the crowd.
I worked for a large US company for a few years and witnessed the hypocracy regarding donations. Nobody cared what really happened with the money or persued it when it got lost or where it actually ended up. All that mattered was that it would be mentioned in an international press release saying "....... donates $ 1 million to Tsunami fund to help poor homeless blah blah blah" That was what mattered. The fact that all the money disappeared and never reached the victims was never communicated. Nobody even cared. We did our part....

It's the mainstream media that actually cloak what's really going on in the world and give a very narrow one-sided view. Which obviously is still believed today, despite all the knowledge that is 'out there'.