One American on International Politics
by milligal 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
milligal
Oh no you don't didgeridoo I won't let you put words in my mouth to promote your argument. If you think this thread is about how great the American empire is, then you need to read my initial post again.
This post is about how I am tired of hearing people in the international community full of criticisms on a political entity that they frankly know little about (judging from the many of the posts) and that being an American, a) I am not judging your country's foolishness and b) will defend my country to the death, I don't want to hear it from the international community anymore.
America has done a lot for the entire world to the point where you feel your economy depends upon us. It doesn't matter the motivation; the point is your country has benefitted from American politics so show a little love. You don't have to approve of everything, but you also don't have to be so judgmental.
The rest of you that think America is sunk-you weren't (obviously) around during the Reagan years. We have been in recession before, and typically Republican administrations put us into recession everytime. Chances are good that we will recover like we do everytime. If you don't like how we do things; here's an idea, start doing things for yourself and stop depending on us!
-
Witness 007
Australia has been just another American state or lap dog since WW 2. We are scared of Asia so we need a big Brother. George led the damn charge....."Fur ma Daddy!"
-
Angharad
I know the Iraq war is a sore point to the international community and no one likes Bush-guess what? 84% (in the last poll I saw) of Americans feel the same. Our political system of voting does not leave the Presidency merely to the popular vote of the citizens, as with the case of Bush, politicians weighed in more heavily than the citizens did. It was our politicians who put him into office. So what would you have the American public do? What would you do if it happened in your country? Storm the capitol and take out the President? I think not. SO why the critism against us?
I think the problem is, the rest of the world could see what Bush 'was' and was 'doing' but it's only now that Americans have become unhappy with him and that is largely because things didn't go according to plan. If you had won the war, had a smooth occupation and cheap gas then I don't think most Americans would have minded that it was all done on a pretext.
The fact is, he was elected and his policies received popular support or at least the electorate was manipulated easily enough to give permission. Your political system is weak and is there to serve the industrial military complex and other big business.
While America may be 'big' and have a big population it is no excuse for people not to be interested in the wold at large as most other populations seem to be (a sweeping generalisation but one that I don't think is disputed).
And yes, for what he has done people should be clamouring for impeachment - the political equivalent of storming the capitol and taking out the president. He's an albatros and has severely undermined the standing of America in the world. He pissed away global good-will after 9/11 ... quite an achievement.
-
Simon
Argh ... I wish my missus wouldn't sign in on my desktop !!
-
milligal
Okay here's another example:
Several posters on this thread are from the UK. I am a big fan of Britain, and when I think about you I think of the good things you've added to our society. I DO NOT TYPICALLY dwell on the fact that you have a royal family that does nothing but suck your money dry and monopolize your national treasures-half of which your country is not able to even see or enjoy because they are off limits in the Queens 12 castles (or however many she owns). I've been to Buckingham Palace and I have to tell you I have never seen such debauchery along the lines of disrespect for the economy and culture of the country.
Now I know there are many British who share my views and there are many who would be loyal to the Queen come hell or high water....hmmm kind of sounds like America and the Bush administration. No, the Queen has not (recently) invaded any countries, but the royals sure as hell put up a sqwak when the colonies first started over here. As I recall England got into a battle with us at that point that left them economically desparaged....do I need to keep going?
llbh-I think you see where I am going with this, I'm not saying we're better. I am saying I'm proud of my country and anyone who points the finger at us has four more pointing back at them. Thanks
-
milligal
Angharad- How easy for yo to say GWB was elected so___________fill in the blank. The point is he wasn't elected by popular vote. I didn't vote for him-He was elected through the Supreme court who were elected inidividually by the past three Presidents. It's a complex system. Yes he's an idiot, but there is no simple answer, and your idea about impeachment is one that has to take place through the Senate and Congress, the issue must be raised and voted on. If you could realize that America is not interested in having a civil war and sometimes you need to choose from the lesser of two evils. But I can assure you-it is not as simple as you would like to think.
By the way, what has Canada done for anyone lately....
-
Wordly Andre
For those who are calling Iraq George Bush's war, do you know that only congress can declare war? And they have the responsibility of due diligence for fact finding over if war is needed. Why isn't the congress of the United States equally responsible for any anger over the war. And all those Americans who were standing outside thier homes waving the American flag and so proud we were fighting have put their flags away when people started dying, what did they think would happen, war costs more than money. During WWII, most Americans had the view of keeping out of Europes war, we wanted peace, however the government came up with the Lend Lease program to help UK & Russia fight Hitler, knowing that would make us a target. We also tried diplomatic dialog with Japan, we didn't want a war in the pacific, again most Americans at that time wanted to stay out of another war, since WWI was still so fresh in everyones mind, and for those of you who think that Americans only have one reason to go to war, yes we do, we have obligation to help our allies, in Europe we wanted to free France, Holland and Poland, in the Pacific we wanted to free the Philipines, China, and all the different islands that the Japanese had taken over.
-
mkr32208
I think that the American citizens argument should be much like the christian mantra "love the sinner hate the sin!" Only ours should be "love the citizen hate the government."
-
quietlyleaving
thats a nice way ofputting it worldly andre.
for a more pragmatic angle regarding lend lease
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=106
January 10, 1941
FDR introduces the lend-lease program
The lend-lease program provided for military aid to any country whose defense was vital to the security of the United States. The plan thus gave Roosevelt the power to “lend” arms to Britain with the understanding that, after the war, America would be paid back “in kind.” Congress overwhelmingly accepted the plan, which only staunch isolationists opposed. Roosevelt’s program enabled the U.S. military to prepare for the growing threat of Japan on its Pacific flank while helping Britain to contain Hitler across the Atlantic, as it permitted aid to Europe without committing American troops that might be needed in a Pacific war. Even though Roosevelt’s plan did not require immediate repayment, the United States commandeered what was left of Britain’s gold reserves and overseas investments to help pay for the increased defense production.
With the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Japan forced the entry of the United States into the war. Roosevelt then recognized the strategic advantage of also supplying the Soviet Union with arms under lend-lease in order to draw Hitler’s resources away from Western Europe. This gave the United States a better chance at fighting a war on two fronts while planning for an invasion to liberate Europe. Roosevelt, mindful of the inherent conflict between American democracy and Soviet communism, counted on using U.S. military aid to the Soviet Union as a bargaining chip in post-war diplomatic relations.