Quote:Well, how about from now on, if you're thinking of posting something you can't readily prove, don't post it, because then you're just reaching.

Quote:Yes, I am saying that we didn't prop up DOZENS. There were a few, granted. But what I am saying is that much of former Communista made the transition from Communism to Democracy without the need for that. Again, see Eastern Europe and other remnants of the USSR, South Korea, etc.

Quote:Most of it is. Much of the world is undeveloped, and ruled by sometimes ancient forms of government, those that are even stable. The world has much to learn from our success.

Quote:Well, that's the point I was making. But the Nam war never helped LBJ, as it turned sharply against him once it was discovered that his administration was lying to the public about how successful the war was. But you're right, it didn't get really bad until after the Tet Offensive.

Quote:They won't care about that when they realize that *gasp* the tax cut includes mostly everyone!

Hate to break it to you, but your Robin Hood mentality is shared by few. Most people don't hate the rich for being rich. A smart person wouldn't, anyway. They would instead use their resources to acquire similar wealth. That's what fuels a capitalistic society. Even regular people wouldn't mind the tax burden on businesses lightened, since starting a small business is a popular thing.

See, in contrast to your views, most people don't want the rich hurt for their benefit. They'd rather become rich themselves.

Quote:And he did nothing to fix it, and with his tax increases actually did more to harm it. He was just lucky that he happened to be President during the Internet Boom, just as it's Bush's own bad luck to accede the presidency at the end of it.

Quote:Of course it's bad to be disliked by everyone else. But if they can't do anything but dislike us, I won't lose sleep over it. Seriously, I only care what other people think if there's a chance that it can affect me. As it stands, they can throw a temper tantrum and they'll get over it.

Quote:It would also be wrong, because we don't dominate with force. We dominate with our economic prowress, and money can often supercede military might. That we also happen to have the best military in the history of the world is irrelevant, as we never use it to even half of it's true capacity. If we did, it's likely we COULD dominate the world militarily.

And the great empires of the world fell for that reason: They tried to dominate militarily, and overextended themselves. It's safe to say we're not anywhere close to that, nor are we even approaching it.

Quote:Well, there's that itty bitty fact that Americans rely on the automobile to an exponentially greater extent than Europeans do whcih results in their astronomical gas prices. But keep in mind that oil doesn't just make automotive gas.

Quote:Well, as I've never seen that before, I'd like a source for it. Considering that the US funds almost all of the UN military force, I find that incredibly unlikely.

Why can't they get rich? Two reasons. This new source of oil won't start some petroleum-consumption orgy, and if anything will drive prices much lower. The financial gains will be long-term, when we have a large, stable source of oil. It's not so much about getting rich quick, but making sure we don't have an oil crisis down the line. Even if on the off chance this war was for oil, eliminating the chance that middle-eastern nations could inflict an oil shortage on us is definitely worth it.

Quote:Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that we wouldn't mind Saddam being in power if he gave his oil fields to us? Even if that was true, does it in any way lessen the effect of it? Are they any less free today because that wasn't the main objective?

Quote:If he had destroyed them, why didn't he prove it? Why refuse the demand of proof? Why kick out inspectors? It doesn't make sense for anyone to RAISE suspicions while all the while doing what is asked of you.

I'll tackle what Nintendarse said later, this has already taken me an hour... though I'd pretty much be echoing what N-Man said, there are a few points I want to touch on later.

Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
Weltall-We have definitely had different upbringings, but I'd like to clarify that I believe the United States has done immense good in its short history. I am proud to be American. I am proud of all the progress we have made in the last 226 and 3/4 years. But progress inherently means that, at some point, we had skewed or confused views on some subjects. I may disagree with Rumsfeld, but I unconditionally support our troops.

But back to our difference in education: My history teachers have always taught their students to look at history with a critical eye. That's probably why I remember all of the mistakes of our foreign policy. In fact, I've been taught in quite a pessimistic way: a focus on what should have been done. "We should have entered WWII earlier", "We shouldn't have made Japanese internment camps", "We shouldn't have misdiagnosed Vietnam as we did", etc. For that, I apologize.

But if there is ever a consistent pattern in history, it is that narcissism does not make a better world. In my education of history, I have found narcissism behind Napoleon, Hitler, fundamentalist religious groups, racism, "divine right" kings, imperialism, and several other movements that, in the light of history, are looked down upon.

I think it is when this narcissism seeps into our foreign policy that we make mistakes that we wish we could take back.

Quote:Replace "The United States" with "France," and you practically have a quote of French foreign policy in 1803 (Napoleon). I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.

Or maybe replace "The United States" with, "Great Britain," and you have a quote of the foreign policy of imperialist Great Britain.

And, might I add, if you change "The United States" to "Germany," you've practically quoted Hitler.

My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"

And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.

Quote:I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.

Quote:While I agree that my assessment of our foreign policy was overly pessimistic, I still think that we struggle to define our role in the international community. Clearly, in the most recent war, we were the judge, jury, and executioner. I think it's dangerous for one (non-God) entity to have that power. I also think that taking a "father" role is a latent form of narcissism for the reasons listed above.

Quote:I'd also like to point out that just because the United States is currently the world's superpower does not mean that its form of government is superior to all others. We've been a superpower for about 50 years and the world's lone superpower for only about 14 years. In the whole view of history, that's insignificant. The Chinese culture held the title for at least 600 years, the Arab culture for several centuries, and the Roman empire for almost a thousand years. Going by the logic, "The world's current most powerful form of government is superior to all others," a person living in 1939 might say, "Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."

Quote:I'm a little confused on your last comment. Would you be willing to accept a theocracy in Iraq if the majority of Iraqi's voted for a theocracy?

Quote:True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:

a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.

and

b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.

Quote:P.S. Thanks Weltall for reading my posts. I guess it's just the nature of the forums to focus on points of disagreement. [/B]

Quote:The tax cuts involve everyone? Well yeah, everyone'll get some miniscule check, sure. While big companies (or, more exactly, their executives) rake in millions of savings. And of COURSE it'll trickle-down! Just like how it (didn't) in the '80s! Everyone knows Reganomics worked...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Well unlike conservatives I actually trust the government to do some good things and think that it'd be a better world with a true world government.

Quote:Rome used force to dominate the world as best they could. They didn't try to change anybody out of their territory, really... those were just the barbarians... and not worth their time. What small inroads they tried in Germany they quicklyl abandoned. Rome held together because of the might of its armies... and died when they became weak and dilluted because of decay and overstretching... they didn't try to slowly get the 'barbarians' to see the goodness of some Roman way nearly enough. They did halfhearted efforts that they gave up on... and were destroyed in the end because of it.

What I meant was that the US is at the point where we are the one power. Sure, there are not barbarians out there with big armies to kill us. But, if we alienate the world enough, in some number of generations in the future some group will come along and defeat us like every other group that dominated by using force.

And make no mistake about it -- if we act uniaterally and do things without international sanction it IS using force. No matter how much you sugar coat it... its force. Pure and simple. Exactly as we did to Iraq.

And in the end its things like that that will help give people in future generations reasons to want to get rid of us when we weaken...

But if we involve the international community and make a true world power of great nations acting in concert we could stop that... for a long time, at least. We were progressing on that path until we got this ... president ...

Quote:So its bad to be proud of your history? Uhhhhhhh.....

Quote:Oh, and Napoleon a great man? NO. Sure, he wasn't brutal like many dictators, but he did try to essentially conquer the world for his greater glory... "betterment of mankind"? No way! Essentially all he wanted was money, power, and land... look, sure, the governments of Europe weren't perfect but Napolen wouldn't have been much of any better! All he'd do is put relatives in charge... like he did in Spain...

And Napoleon didn't let off on oppression and wasn't some liberal. He was conservative...

Quote:You just don't get the point at all, do you? Its funny... he says something (that I understand) then people like you and Weltall go off in some other direction that seems to have no connection with what I just read...

Uh, his point was that what you said is both arrogant and wrong. He is right. Sure, some ideas are better... and it'd be great if every nation could be a democracy. But look what you get when unprepared nations become democracies... *looks at Africa*

Yeah, civil war, dictators, "elections" with troops ready to assure the victor, etc. Oh, and he is also correct that it is stupid to think that "they" any stupider than we are. "they" aren't... they're just in a more unfortunate situation. Looking down on them and "telling them what is right" like a parent insults them. Yes, teach them... but not in a condecending, 'i know best' fashion and not just by yourself. Having others around to agree on what to do and to help teach them is clearly the best way to be successful...

"they have sad ideas and we must help them see the light" is neither a productive nor a successful policy... as many empires over the years learned. It just leads to unrest and the hatred of the people of those nations being dominated and "taught". See: British Empire, esp. India.

Quote:First, the point isn't whether it is true now -- its whether the same person, in that situation, could have said that with as much conviction as Weltall did and sounded right. They could have. Just like Weltall now proclaiming that WE KNOW BEST.

Quote:Yes, we are more powerful than any empire in the history of the world. Even Ghengis Khan didn't conquer EVERYTHING... he failed to take Japan or Africa... or Europe, though that was just a time issue, not a issue of Europe being stronger. But that really isn't the point here. Every empire inevitably falls as it rises... by force. We rose to empire by destroying our opponent and taking primacy in the world about 10 years ago. So? Every empire rose to heights... then fell...

Quote:Oh, and at its height the British Empire controlled more total land area than Ghenghis (well, mostly Canada, but still...) and had 1/4 or so of the world's population in its control... but then it dissolved as its controlled states realized that the British DIDN'T know best after all...

Quote:If we follow that path, as we are so far, I see a world full of hate for us just waiting for the time we are weak enough to topple. Same as the Romans and British. That just isn't a good vision for the future of the world! [/B]

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Now Weltall... you've got to reply to Nintendarse's post and both of mine... get some food? You'll be here a while... :)

Quote:Just like you do?

Quote:Between me and Nintendarse, we came up with 12 in a few minuites (or did you skip those parts?)... and that's just a fraction of the ones we went into...

Quote:Look at Nintendarse's chart then rethink that part.

Quote:The tax cuts involve everyone? Well yeah, everyone'll get some miniscule check, sure. While big companies (or, more exactly, their executives) rake in millions of savings. And of COURSE it'll trickle-down! Just like how it (didn't) in the '80s! Everyone knows Reganomics worked...

Quote:You wish... you can deny it as much as you want but its a lot more than cooincedence that gave us a good economy, a rise OUT of deficit spending (one problem Bush sure solved fast), etc. Its not a cooincedence that as soon as Bush came in the recession that had started went steeply downhill, either... and still is...

Quote:Expanding on my comments to N_Man...

The point is that we ARE dominating by force! Iraq was FORCE. Pure and simple. And it sets a precident that, as I explain in depth to N-Man, is very, very dangerous and sets us up for a bleak future. Unless things change soon.

Quote:Yeah, we do do that. True. But I'd still LOVE to see higher gas taxes... maybe not to the point of $4 gas, but much higher. It'd be GREAT do so something to stop so many people from getting those stupid SUVs.

Quote:What do you mean? Inredibly unlikely? Look. We spend a LOT on foreign aid. That is uncontestable. BUT, as a PERCENT it is lower than most anyone. Since our economy is so huge...

Quote:Oh, and its not anywhere near worth a war and everything else that happened to get a secure source of oil... and anyway, it won't be THAT secure. Many of the Iraqis already hate us...

Quote:No, of course not. W. would never deal with Sadaam... and sure they are free. So are the Afghanis. But in both cases freeing them is the side effect and other things are the reason for action.

Quote:Note how many brutal dictatorships are still in power... will we go kill them all now? Sure it'd make some people feel better, but the overall effect in the future would be bad...

Quote:Look at the last few months before the attack. You don't believe me, but I think that they were telling the truth there... the Iraqis were letting the inspectors destroy those missiles that broke the range limit and seemed to desperately be trying to ask how to prove they had destroyed or dumped the weapons when they had "lost" (I'm still dubious about that part) the papers...

Sure, in 1998 they were doing what you say, but, I'd say, not NEARLY as much since the inspectors returned. [/B]

Quote:In a perfect world. But it hasn't worked, and won't for a long time, if ever. I explained why above.

Quote:Your entire point is a what-if. It assumes that there will ever be a world power that could threaten us, and at this point that's unlikely, because most nations adopt thinking patterns that limit their own influence and power. It would also assume that we would become so reviled that the entire world could overcome their differences to fight us, and that's impossible, frankly. The reason we are so powerful and will remain so is not because of our strength, but because of our economy, an economy that, unlike many, can be largely self-sufficient if it comes down to that. As it stands, many nations rely on trade with us for their very survival.

You're right. We were proceeding on the path to a world government until this president came along and exposed a few fatal weaknesses in it. World government will only succeed either in a time of great crisis, or when all nations think on the same page.

Quote:Napoleon was only looking for his own personal ends. He had a gigantic ego. But he did enable the US to double in size... so he's not all bad.

Quote:The 'democracies' of Africa are just like the 'democracy' of Iraq under Saddam: Democracies in name only, a mockery. It's been enough to placate the UN, which refused to do anything about these tragedies. What these nations need is to be helped into their democracy, like we are helping Iraq and helped Serbia to do. No, we can't just give them the basics and stand back, but we can guide them because we DO know best. It's not a matter of bringing savages into the light, it's helping them do it themselves. The US can do this, and the UN could have... SHOULD have. But first, sometimes you must eliminate the cancer that is eating the people first.

Quote:People in a different situation might not think we know best. That doesn't mean they're right.

Quote:Again, there are fundamental differences. How did we defeat the Soviet Union? ECONOMICALLY. We bled them dry because they could not compete with us on that very important level, to say nothing of their ruling power being one of extreme oppression and genocide. And we didn't take a single square foot of land from them. We've been an empire since we became more than 13 states in honesty, and a TRUE empire when we took lands from the Spanish a century ago. And since WWII we've been the strongest superpower in the world. Now we're the only one. But we haven't added any land from our fallen foes to our empire in a hundred years, save for perhaps a few islands from Japan. We conquered half of the German Reich and much of Japan's former empire, and we could have assimilated them if we chose. We did not. We made the wise move of allowing them to become free on their own, and the results were a complete success, because we took the time to help them become what they are.

Quote:Yes, but the British weren't simply trying to intstall their way of life on people, but their own rule, usually a dominating rule. Had they taken a different approach to ruling their colonies, they might not have had that happen. America might still be a part of Britain had they not oppressed us. Remember, we didn't just decide one day that we didn't want to be a part of Great Britain anymore, we did it after years of oppression from the British parliament and the king.

Quote:That is assuming that we ever do become weak enough to topple. Personally, I can't see that happening without some major event making it happen. There are also many other factors that are different from other empires that lead me to believe that it would truly take a huge natural catastrophe or huge civil disorder and civil war to bring America down.

Quote:Well unlike conservatives I actually trust the government to do some good things and think that it'd be a better world with a true world government.

Quote:But, if we alienate the world enough, in some number of generations in the future some group will come along and defeat us like every other group that dominated by using force.

Quote:And make no mistake about it -- if we act uniaterally and do things without international sanction it IS using force. No matter how much you sugar coat it... its force. Pure and simple. Exactly as we did to Iraq.

Quote:So its bad to be proud of your history? Uhhhhhhh.....

Quote:Oh, and Napoleon a great man? NO. Sure, he wasn't brutal like many dictators, but he did try to essentially conquer the world for his greater glory... "betterment of mankind"? No way! Essentially all he wanted was money, power, and land... look, sure, the governments of Europe weren't perfect but Napolen wouldn't have been much of any better! All he'd do is put relatives in charge... like he did in Spain...

And Napoleon didn't let off on oppression and wasn't some liberal. He was conservative...

Quote: and it'd be great if every nation could be a democracy. But look what you get when unprepared nations become democracies... *looks at Africa*

Yeah, civil war, dictators, "elections" with troops ready to assure the victor, etc. Oh, and he is also correct that it is stupid to think that "they" any stupider than we are. "they" aren't... they're just in a more unfortunate situation. Looking down on them and "telling them what is right" like a parent insults them. Yes, teach them... but not in a condecending, 'i know best' fashion and not just by yourself. Having others around to agree on what to do and to help teach them is clearly the best way to be successful...

"they have sad ideas and we must help them see the light" is neither a productive nor a successful policy... as many empires over the years learned. It just leads to unrest and the hatred of the people of those nations being dominated and "taught". See: British Empire, esp. India.

Quote:First, the point isn't whether it is true now -- its whether the same person, in that situation, could have said that with as much conviction as Weltall did and sounded right. They could have. Just like Weltall now proclaiming that WE KNOW BEST.

Quote:Originally posted by Geno
That's where the liberal half of me comes in. I'm not fan of the tax cuts either. While my dad is getting back $300, some corporate billionaire is getting back $300,000. Yeah, great deal.

Quote:Originally posted by Geno
That's where the liberal half of me comes in. I'm not fan of the tax cuts either. While my dad is getting back $300, some corporate billionaire is getting back $300,000. Yeah, great deal.

Quote:I am not an american , But you got to see the big picture. IF your dad takes that 300$ and buys a new DVD player and millions of others do the same with other products that means economic growth, Which leads to more jobs and oportunities.The Rich would use that money to build small busineses meaning more jobs.

Quote:It does sound unfair when you say it like that, Geno. But you have to realise that that same corporate billionaire is paying several million dollars in taxes, while your father is paying no where near that amount.

Quote:Which is why the rich guy shouldn't have a tax cut...

Quote:How? How could a government stationed in say, Brussels, have a better idea of what you in Pluckdump, Wyoming need than one in Washington DC? How could a government that applies the same principles to Twa Pygmies living in the forests of Burundi and to you could work better than a smaller, more regional one? Explain to me how a world government would work.

Quote:If this is about the survival of America, don't have any illusions. The United States will disappear some day, there are no two ways about that. If you think you'll manage to extend it to immortality by befriending everybody, you're dreaming. America will fall some day, just like every other political entity on Earth.

Quote:It's still using force even if a semi-corrupt, mixed group of unelected former businessmen and lawyers gives you the green light.

And there is nothing wrong with force, should it be used for correct goals

Quote:What pride can you get from acts which aren't yours? I suppose if it helps you sleep better...

Quote:Are you arguing that feudalism is superior to Napoleonic code? Didn't think so. When the main difference between two styles of government is one enslaves an entire nation to one person and the other doesn't, there's no point arguing.

There is no denying the Napoleonic era ushered into a new age of nationalism, with people all over Europe claiming their rights as free men.

Napoléon Bonaparte WAS a great man. He was a superior tactician, an eminent strategist, and carried the ideals of the French Revolution to all corners of Europe, defeating all in his wake. Ironically, he was in the end beaten by Great Britain, the only country whose populace could claim a similar or greater level of freedom. This, I will remind you, because of men who challenged royal authority and gave their blood for those rights.

Of course he did things for his own glory. What man wants no legacy? But his acts, in the end, brought good things.

Quote:The fact that former colonizing powers did a shit job organizing Africa doesn't make democracy a bad idea. They didn't create democracy, they just drew lines in the sand and left.

And for India, oh what are you going on about! India is run by the British parliamentary system, and is one of the most successful democracies (considering its huge population) in the world. If you're going to show me where instituting democracy failed, by (insert deity) don't mention India. The entire Indian subcontinent was divided and three centuries behind Europe under Moghol domination, and after just a hundred and fifty it's now fairly well united and has a thriving film and high-tech industry (the area around Bangalore is called mini-silicon valley or something of the genre). Of all the dismal failures in the region, with Pakistan and Myanmar governed by military governments, Afghanistan by religious fundamentalists up to a few months ago, and China by the flaming commies, India is a resounding success.

In fact, mentioning the entire British Empire as an example of failed imperialism is a terrible idea. HM's Empire was slowly dismembered by its own leaders with no great bloodbaths (except, I'll concede, for Ireland), with Britain proper being basically untouched. They had their time in the sun, now they're less of a power... but it's not like they were totally and utterly destroyed by masses of revolutionary anarcho-marxists or anything.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
A true world government would work exactly the same as a national one but on a bigger scale.

Quote:You mean debate for days over things that trivial matters, spend vast amounts of money on things that don't really need it, and rarely get anything done? I'm in!

Seriously, I have nothing against a world government if it works. But I think for it to truely work it would have to have a central figure to run things and a world court that is above all others. So basically the whole world would have to be one country for a world government to truly work.

Quote:N-Man

How? How could a government stationed in say, Brussels, have a better idea of what you in Pluckdump, Wyoming need than one in Washington DC? How could a government that applies the same principles to Twa Pygmies living in the forests of Burundi and to you could work better than a smaller, more regional one? Explain to me how a world government would work.

Quote: N-man:

What pride can you get from acts which aren't yours? I suppose if it helps you sleep better...

Quote:N-man:

And there is nothing wrong with force, should it be used for correct goals.

Quote:N-man

Napoléon Bonaparte WAS a great man. He was a superior tactician, an eminent strategist, and carried the ideals of the French Revolution to all corners of Europe, defeating all in his wake. Ironically, he was in the end beaten by Great Britain, the only country whose populace could claim a similar or greater level of freedom. This, I will remind you, because of men who challenged royal authority and gave their blood for those rights.

Of course he did things for his own glory. What man wants no legacy? But his acts, in the end, brought good things.

Quote:N-man:

No, the point IS whether it is true- both now and then. What it "sounds like" is irrelevant. That reasoning claims that you, as a human being, are not fit to know what kind of government suits you best. That you are incapable of deducing, using logic and reasoning, how you want the schools your children go to administrated, how you want the hospitals you will go to when you're a dying old man administrated, which you prefer of freedom and security, and so forth.

Quote:Carlton J. H. Hayes, pioneer scholar of nationalism, set a formula early in his career for two basic kinds of nationalism. This distinction has been accepted by most specialists on nationalism...According to Hayes, nationalism has a dual nature--as a force either for good or evil, as blessing or curse...Hayes presents seven evils and abuses of nationalism:

1. The spirit of exclusiveness and narrowness associated with the wrong kind of nationalism. It teaches the concept of a chosen people. It presents a false theory that people should prize far more what is theirs as a nationality than what is theirs a human beings.

2. Nationalism places a premium on uniformity It prescribes national modes of art, standards of thought, and norms of conduct, and expects all citizens to conform.

3. Nationalism increases the docility of the masses Because of their upbringing and education, the masses seldom question the providential character of their nationality, their state, and their government.

4. Nationalism focuses popular attention upon war and preparation for war Military heroes outrank in the national pantheons the heroes of science, art, and learning.

5. Jingoism, clamoring for war or warlike and aggressive policy, is a specific abuse of nationalism.

6. The evils of imperialism, a policy of expansion or territorial growth by the acquisition of foreign territory, stems from nationalism.

7. Intolerance is a hallmark of this kind of nationalism. The unwillingness to tolerate contrary beliefs or opinions goes hand in hand with the wrong form of nationalism.

Quote:A true world government would work exactly the same as a national one but on a bigger scale. That is a silly question... why not ask the same exact thing about natives in American Samoa?

Quote:Sure. But a true world government (on some level) well might survive somehting like that. A world controlled by american domination wouldn't.

Quote:Its then legal force, which gives it higher moral ground. And the UN would never act unless it is clear that force (the absolute last resort) is necessary... which is good. Force isn't a very effective tool and its use should be avoided whenever possible.

Quote:So you don't feel proud about anything that has ever happened in America's history?

Quote:No, I'm saying that if he'd lasted Napoleon would have turned out to be identical to them. He already was, really... just with a nicer law code and trappings of "freedom" to make the people who supported the recently ended Revolution happy.

Quote:It is true that in Africa Britain and France were pretty halfhearted in their attempts at democracy. In some places they DID try, but they left far too soon. In India though... that was different... it was obviously prepared for democracy as they actively saught it out and succeeded in getting their goal. There WERE some bloodbaths, though. I remember a History Channel show on a massacre where British troops slaugtered some protesting civilians in India that helped bring tensions to a head. Don't delude yourself to think that the British were somehow nice and not brutal... they had a nice side, but to many natives of most conquered nations they saw just the brutal one. Sure, it wasn't as bad as Congo or Indonesia, but there were incidents. Imperialism is rule by force... the Indians wanting democracy wasn't exactly something the British welcomed or expected...

Quote:I can't. That chart stops either before Tet or right near it, too close to call either way.

Quote:And why is it so evil for them to get a return if we are too? Do you really hate capitalism that much!?

And Reaganomics worked beautifully, it not only defeated Communism where the military could not, it ushered in the most prosperous economic era in our history.

Quote:The rise out of deficit spending came with consequences too, foremost being a gutted intelligence force and a decapitated military, the restoration of both being a huge factor in the deficit now. The recession had begun at the end of the Clinton term, and only fell more because Bush took over as soon as the dotcom bubble truly burst, then 9-11 followed on it's heels. Bush is to blame for neither.

There are many government programs that could be cut to reduce spending. Welfare is a good start.

Quote:We did use force to eliminate Saddam, but we aren't conquering Iraq to keep for ourselves. THAT is the difference. We will rule there only until we can get their new government jumpstarted. Then we back off. The mere use of force in a conflict alone cannot equate us with empires who defeated their enemies and kept the land.

Quote:Well, for one thing, what cars people own is none of your damn business, as it's their money. EXCEPT in the case of poor people who use my tax money to buy Explorers and Lexuses while they can barely afford to feed their families living in slums. That's liberal programs at work, but I'm getting off on a tangent. A higher gas tax would also go a long way to hurting people who DON'T drive SUVs but still commute a lot, or long distance, and those people are often poor and middle-class. No, instead we need to apply the technology that enables 50MPG carburetors into all sorts of vehicles. The LAST thing we need is to take a cue from socialist Europe, because if you think that SUV manufacturers would be the only ones hurt by a gas tax hike, you're more naive than I give you credit for.

Quote:Okay, some proof please? As this pervertedly long series of posts proves, I don't ignore points.

Quote: In fact, the United States spends nowhere near these amounts: only 1 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid (and as a percentage of the gross national product, what we provide is the smallest in the industrial world). Moreover, very little of this is actually spent on the poorest or most desperate countries. Instead, our foreign aid practices are overwhelmingly geared to furthering our own interests, not those of others. But it is certainly nice to pretend otherwise.

Quote:They won't hate us when their quality of life improves.

Quote:But you inferred that this result was insignificant since it wasn't the main reason, and that is not true.

Quote:Only for the dictators.

Quote:The only reason Saddam even allowed them to return is because of pressure from us. Left to the UN, it never would have happened. Sometimes the threat of force can achieve results.

Quote:First, it's refreshing to see that you can see things from more than one side, it's something that some of us here, myself often included, fail to do.

Quote:It gave me a greater understanding of how the US has operated in its history. Truth, we have made mistakes. But the fact still stands: There's hardly a nation in the world that has seen success like we have, and I don't just mean our power. I mean our government. We truly have the most successful government in the history of mankind, NOT because it is the oldest or longest-lasting (I'm sure it ranks), but because of the type it is. We were the only democracy in a world of empires and kingdoms, we tested the waters of a true representative system and it has endured for a quarter of a millenium with only one challenge to its dominion, that being a single, and relatively short Civil War. This nation's government is the very model of stability, despite it probably being the one of the least powerful in the world. I don't believe it's narcissistic to claim we know better than everyone else. We do. And the most successful and powerful nations in the world today are this way because they emulated our form of government. Thus, it goes without saying that we know better than those who live under, or rule over regimes that practice archaic and oppressive forms of government.

Quote:Keep in mind that history is always written by the victors, and that the defeated are always looked down upon. But the only way the United States can ever fall is by way of internal strife. We are simply too protected and too powerful to fall to someone else's miltary force, which brought down most great empires. I honestly can't see that happening anytime soon. The United States has the chance, more than any empire before it, to perservere forever. Thus, there is a lot that other nations can learn from us, because we truly do know better than they do. As I said, those that are successful today are successful because they saw that we knew better than they did.

Quote:See, the difference between the US and the three nations you mentioned is that those three tried to conquer with military force. Their aim was sheer dominance of those they conquered, and not mere assimilation. They all overextended their military forces and therefore fell repeatedly to threats from without and within. They really did not know better than their neighbors (they often in fact practiced the same government as their neighbors) and that point was driven home in their eventual defeats. We are really not in any similar circumstance to them. We're not trying to force our way of life on people so much as we are trying to get them to adopt it themselves and shape it to their own needs. It's better for people to live free, and it's better to have foreign governments who are friendly to us. But as N-Man said, it's just the way things are. Some ideas truly are superior to others. If there's a better form of government than Democracy, we would today have a nation of roughly equal power to us as a rival, and we don't. We perservere.

Quote:Alright, I must concede here. You got me.

Quote:The reason we had to assume that role is because the international community was derelict in it's duty. And even if the UN had gone to war with Iraq instead of just the US, it would have been almost exclusively US and British military involved anyway, as it has in practically every military engagement the UN was ever involved in. So it would have mattered little anyway, except that we would have other nations telling us what to do militarily, and ultimately weakening us (like in Desert Storm). Remember, it's not as though we didn't try to get the UN with us.

Quote:But it is, for reasons I stated above. Chinese culture and arab culture are cultures, but they were also wracked by infighting and dynastic changes repeatedly through history, something we have not experienced except in one instance. We have no threats to our existence. And, it didn't take them the entire length of their existence to become the powers they were. Who knows how long this nation will stand? It could very well be thousands of years and we're just getting started.

Quote:Yes, I would. They of course would have to realize that if that theocracy tries anything stupid, we'll be right back in there. I don't think it's likely a theocracy will take hold though. I hope it doesn't. I hope the Iraqi people are smarter than that now that they have a choice.

Quote:I agree, to a point. We need something that is stronger than the UN, but only for purposes of alliance and peacekeeping, definitely NOT a world government, because that idea has already failed twice. World government can only succeed when it's members can agree on more issues, and when the most powerful member is at odds with most of the rest, it won't work, and there are too many differences between Socialist Europe and us for it to really work yet.

I mean, you have to consider that in the UN, the military force is predominantly American, because we do military better than anyone, and therefore we can make war like no one else. On one hand, it would be fair if every nation contributed equally to military force, but that isn't possible, and would probably do more harm than good. Same deal goes with the economics. We can contribute far more than most nations. When you consider the gap in power, both economic and military, and the differences of opinion, it's probably better for now that either there is no UN, or that we are not a part of it.

Quote:American Samoa has its own government, afaik... I just don't really understand. Okay, suppose we do it like in Samoa, and all the countries under the world government also have a government. This is just adding a layer of bureaucracy. What good does it do?

Quote:Heh... everything dies someday, not to sound morbid

Quote:Having delegates of Khadaffi, Assad, Mugabe and the whole damn pantheon tell you something is right does not, repeat does not give it higher moral ground. Who do you trust more:

Bush + Blair
Bush + Blair + Khomeini + Iron-Fist Fujimori, Super President of Peru... okay well he's gone, but you get the idea. Considering that a vast number (possibly a majority) of governments do not even represent the wills of their people, how can you claim their approval is "higher moral ground"?

Quote:Considering I'm not American, that's pretty appropriate dontcha think? :p

History is too convoluted for pride. Pride about people and acts who under different circumstances wouldn't even be part of your country; I'm of course talking about national pride, I realize I may have been extending that to all sorts of pride in my haste; but once again, political entities are too frail and volatile to feel proud of. I'm proud of the accomplishments of mankind and of mankind itself, but, I'm sorry, the fact that I'm vaguely related to certain groups of people doesn't accentuate my feeling of pride towards them.

Quote:But the nicer law code made all the difference, my good man! And besides, he couldn't have lasted. Remember: the Empire conquers, then crumbles.

Quote:I certainly exaggerated here also, but the fact is that in the end there was no genocide of any sort and everything turned out for the best.

My point about the British empire wasn't really that things turned out well for the conquered peoples, but rather that it did for Britain proper. It's just a way of saying, even if America engages in outright empire-building, it doesn't mean it'll get assaulted from every direction by bloodthirsty freedom fighters.

Quote:Are you Dan's girlfriend?

Quote:Or is that EM...