Many Views Abound

[Archangel M]

And even the powers the president does have can be countermanded by congress if they had the "balls" to do it. So for all the "Bush is destroying our Constitution" accusations, there should also be some complaints about congress allowing it.

 

[cdunn]

Everyone hates Congress as a whole. Everyone loves their Congressman.

You will also note that there were some pretty significant changes in the composition of Congress 2 years ago. It is not hard to suppose that at least some of this is in response to disapproval of what was believed to be an enabler of Bush.

 

[Archangel M]

And its in the interest of a Democratic majority Congress to let the President take ALL the heat.

 

[Mark L]

Whether it's citizens like it or not the American election is looked at by the other countries of the world in trepidation. When it's President talks of making war on Iran and Syria we worry, America has taken actions in the past involving itself in other countries business that cause us to worry where the line will be drawn and wonder who's country is next. Like it or not the American presidental elections and the subsequent election of the next president sends a ripple around the world. Actions taken by the American President and the American Government affect all of us so you can't be surprised at the views and interest taken in what's going on.

Non-US citizens can have any views and interests they want on US matters, or those of any other nation state. I'd draw the line at those non-citizens trying to influence, or have any say whatsoever, in US elections. They can try, but that's all. They should also expect to be greeted with "It's none of your damn business.", even if they think it is. I'll anticipate a response indicating that the US tries, and perhaps succeeds often, to influence foreign governments/elections. I'll grant that that happens. Are we "bad" because we strive for foreign situations that are in our best interest? Perhaps those countries/governments that are the subject of this influence are to blame for acquiesing? If they don't like us or what we're doing, they should go their own way.

You don't have to take criticism at all, take them to task by all means, you should defend your country but to say you don't give a damn what's said then go into a diatribe about ungrateful natives hating America is just hilarious!

I could not care less whether those nations we've helped acknowledge US assistance, either now or in the past. My expectation of my government is that it do and act in the best interest of my country. Failing that, We (the US citizenry) will bring to bear the only influence that matters.

Pretty naive, huh?

 

[Tez3]

It's understandable that Americans don't want outsiders trying to influence their elections but the problem is that it also works the other way, people don't want America interfering their elections either and sadly this has happened more than a few times. America has tried to influence many countries to go they way they want them to. America even invaded Grenada as they didn't like the government there! There is a long list of American intervention in countries where they didn't like the politics.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html
http://www.population-security.org/swom-97-07.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1206sussman.php

 

[Mark L]

It's understandable that Americans don't want outsiders trying to influence their elections but the problem is that it also works the other way, people don't want America interfering their elections either and sadly this has happened more than a few times. America has tried to influence many countries to go they way they want them to. America even invaded Grenada as they didn't like the government there! There is a long list of American intervention in countries where they didn't like the politics.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html
http://www.population-security.org/swom-97-07.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1206sussman.php

You're absolutely correct. My point is that any sovereign nation is ultimately responsible for its' own government and practices, regardless of the views of other individuals or governments (including mine). That's the theory, anyway. I think the reality is that we'll all try and promote our own best interests, ideals, and way of life & government on others until we're made to stop.

Here in the USA it's pretty easy to take that stance, given that we're pretty close to the top of the food chain. I appreciate that not all nations have the means to tell the "big dogs" to butt out, but taking a stand against undue influence has paid dividends for more than one "puppy".

 

[Archangel M]

It's understandable that Americans don't want outsiders trying to influence their elections but the problem is that it also works the other way, people don't want America interfering their elections either and sadly this has happened more than a few times. America has tried to influence many countries to go they way they want them to. America even invaded Grenada as they didn't like the government there! There is a long list of American intervention in countries where they didn't like the politics.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html
http://www.population-security.org/swom-97-07.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1206sussman.php

As have all countries of any global signifigance. Yours included.

 

[Tez3]

As have all countries of any global signifigance. Yours included.

Of course it has...when we had the Empire but you saw where that got us! The point is though that while some on here are getting angry at what they see as outsiders butting in where they aren't wanted and expressing views on your elections, the fact remains that America reserves the right to butt into others politics and governments. They can't have it both ways can they? If the rest of the world is to stay out of American internal affairs surely America can stay out of everyone elses? if they can't or won't then the rest of the world will feel free to influence, comment on and criticise your politics anyway it can.

I think too that the way that America has gone about influencing others countries by using the CIA rather than overt lobbying or diplomatic means has done much to damage relations between America and other countries. Pouring money into rebel groups and supplying weapons to them to bring down legitimately elected governments doesn't win friends. Accepting and working with governments even though you don't agree with their idealogies would bring more benefits to both countries rather than inciting wars. We understand you fear and loathe communists but far better to work with a communist government than fight it by covert means and causing misery. Keeping right wing dictators in power when the citizens of that country don't want them is not morally or ethically correct and ultimately it isn't even in your own interests. Saddam Hussein was kept in power that way and look what happened there, the Taliban in Afghanistan was supported too and now we are fighting them. Vietnam ended up a communist country anyway despite all the fighting and dirty ops that went on, was it worth it? Far better to have left it and perhaps it wouldn't be communist now.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some very good points coming out all round, ladies and gentlemen. I particularly commend the honesty with which some of those points have been made with regard to the fact that no government acts on the world stage out of pure altruism.

For the perfectly understandable rebuttals from our Trans-Atlantic friends to those of us of British extraction, I can only answer that, when we indulged in the creation of empire by miltary force, it was a different world.

By this I mean that we threw our un-paralleled weight around to get our way, often doing so with some good motives behind the bayonets, in a time when such behaviour was the modus opperandi of nations. It was how business was done.

Todays world is a very different one and such blatant imperialism is much frowned upon in what is supposed to be a community of nations. Which is why 'sneakier' methods have to be employed to set up conditions where miltiary or overwhelming economic force can be used to push a foreign government out of the way.

Even then, once these 'cloak and dagger' machinations are revealed, the general consensus is that it is still not acceptable behaviour.

For now, America can safely ignore all the protests and ill-feeling it's actions are generating but it should be in everyones mind that no nation stays 'top dog' forever and one day the 'bill' for previous actions comes due.

It would be better to change tack and modify actions to better suit a 21st rather than a 19th century environment but I can't see that happening given that the economy rests on the necessity of drawing out the wealth of other nations to support a life-style that is untenable in the long term.

 

[Tez3]

Some very good points coming out all round, ladies and gentlemen. I particularly commend the honesty with which some of those points have been made with regard to the fact that no government acts on the world stage out of pure altruism.

For the prefectly understandable rebuttals from our Trans-Atlantic friends to those of us of British extraction, I can only answer that, when we indulged in the creation of empire by miltary force, it was a different world.

By this I mean that we threw our un-paralleled weight around to get our way, often doing so with some good motives behind the bayonets, in a time when such behaviour was the modus opperandi of nations. It was how business was done.



Todays world is a very different one and such blatant imperialism is much frowned upon in what is supposed to be a community of nations. Which is why 'sneakier' methods have to be employed to set up conditions where miltiary or overwhelming economic force can be used to push a foreign government out of the way.

Even then, once these 'cloak and dagger' machinations are revealed, the general consensus is that it is still not acceptable behaviour.

For now, America can safely ignore all the protests and ill-feeling it's actions are generating but it should be in everyones mind that no nation stays 'top dog' forever and one day the 'bill' for previous actions comes due.

It would be better to change tack and modify actions to better suit a 21st rather than a 19th century environment but I can't see that happening given that the economy rests on the necessity of drawing out the wealth of other nations to support a life-style that is untenable in the long term.

How true this is! A lot of the British actions were done not just with British interests in mind but because it was felt that the 'natives' ( basically anyone not British) couldn't be allowed to run things themselves as they were far too naive. The very worst kind of paternalism.
It's very easy to assume that the life you lead and enjoy is the best for everyone and it may be difficult to understand why people don't want the same things as you do but every country is different. There's a fair few countries who would invade another because they believe it's rightfully theirs or because they are at war but only I think America would invade countries because they think that country should be living the American way of life!
Americans I have met to a person have been open, friendly and very likeable but all them of them have been astonished that it's not every person in the worlds dream to live the American way.
I think perhaps in the current economic climate we all need to reaccess our place in the world. There's no place for imperialism and paternalism these days, no one should appoint themselves the world's policeman. We need to work together, issues such as global warming and the 'credit crunch' afffect everyone now, no one is immune.

 

[Mark L]

Tez3,
It seems pretty obvious that you don't like America much, or maybe just American government and policy. OK, fair enough. Yet in the "Palin's Motherhood in the Media" thread you bemoaned the criticism your government and country have received on these forums (posts 138, 144, 146), then you turn around and do the same thing to mine?

I'd suggest you continue to post on any issue that interests you, but maybe you shouldn't complain when others do the same.

 

[Tez3]

Tez3,
It seems pretty obvious that you don't like America much, or maybe just American government and policy. OK, fair enough. Yet in the "Palin's Motherhood in the Media" thread you bemoaned the criticism your government and country have received on these forums (posts 138, 144, 146), then you turn around and do the same thing to mine?

I'd suggest you continue to post on any issue that interests you, but maybe you shouldn't complain when others do the same.

What a load of bollocks! of course I like America, why wouldn't I?
How nice of you to turn around what said on the 'motherhood' thread and make it seem as if I was complaining about being criticed first! Far from it, I was pointing out that you seem to feel free to crticise other countries but don't like it back, a point which you have very adequately proved here!
We are having an interesting and civilised discussion on this thread yet you seem to want to censor my comments.
I wasn't criticising America by the way just pointing out that interfering with other countries government doesn't make you friends and as I and a couple of others have pointed out Britain can speak from experience as we have done some pretty good messing up in the past.

 

[Mark L]

What a load of bollocks! of course I like America, why wouldn't I?
How nice of you to turn around what said on the 'motherhood' thread and make it seem as if I was complaining about being criticed first! Far from it, I was pointing out that you seem to feel free to crticise other countries but don't like it back, a point which you have very adequately proved here!
We are having an interesting and civilised discussion on this thread yet you seem to want to censor my comments.
I wasn't criticising America by the way just pointing out that interfering with other countries government doesn't make you friends and as I and a couple of others have pointed out Britain can speak from experience as we have done some pretty good messing up in the past.

They're your words, not mine.

Please point out where I criticised other countries, as I'm quite sure I haven't. Failing that, perhaps you could ammend your accusation.

My comment to you was intended to be civilized, simply pointing out a disparity in your approach to delivering and accepting criticism. I guess I need to be more delicate in my reparte, you being so easily ruffled and all.

Whatever ...

 

[Sukerkin]

Ladies and gentlemen, it would be perhaps be appropriate at this time to remind you that turning your sights on each other rather than the matters under discussion is one of the big "Thou shalt nots" here, particularly in the Study under it's new regulations.

Please bear that in mind and let the conversation flow on the issues rather than our issues with each other.

 

[Tez3]

They're your words, not mine.

Please point out where I criticised other countries, as I'm quite sure I haven't. Failing that, perhaps you could ammend your accusation.

My comment to you was intended to be civilized, simply pointing out a disparity in your approach to delivering and accepting criticism. I guess I need to be more delicate in my reparte, you being so easily ruffled and all.

Whatever ...

No I don't have a disparity in my approach. the truth is that my country was criticised first in a number of threads on guns, knives and shootings in which were included comments like Brits being like sheep, when I however made a few comments about another country made tongue in cheek on one thread I was accused of not being able to take criticism (among other things). I think you've got it the wrong way round. I had some extremely hurtful comments flung at me when some people chose to make it personal.
'You' as is very often the case on the internet is designated to mean not you in particular but 'you' as Americans.

 

[MA-Caver]

Way I see it... we Americans should give some "thought" to what/how the rest of the world views us. I don't like the bully image that some have attributed to us as it's not fair since we've done a lot more than just bully people around. We've shed blood to fight bullies wanting to make other countries their own. When was the last time the U.S. tried to "take over another country and call it a part of the U.S. ?
I agree that the world should not involve themselves with our electoral processes as it's worked (a bit shaky at times) and it's our own.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, the corporations have more sense than to try annexing other countries, via the government, so blatantly. After all, they're just after stripping the wealth out of them, they're not interesting in running them more than they need to keep the 'gold' flowing.

To quote myself:

"It would be better to change tack and modify actions to better suit a 21st rather than a 19th century environment but I can't see that happening given that the economy rests on the necessity of drawing out the wealth of other nations to support a life-style that is untenable in the long term.".

That's the part that I think fires up many of the non-religious inspired opponents to America's behaviour out in the world. I know that for myself it is the one thing that I very strongly feel the American people as a whole needs to appreciate i.e. that it is not possible for you as an economy to keep on the way you are. The world cannot support you indefinitely at the rate of consumption you've been told you can have.

To steal something from Portal, "The cake is a lie" .

 

[Mark L]

No I don't have a disparity in my approach. the truth is that my country was criticised first in a number of threads on guns, knives and shootings in which were included comments like Brits being like sheep, when I however made a few comments about another country made tongue in cheek on one thread I was accused of not being able to take criticism (among other things). I think you've got it the wrong way round. I had some extremely hurtful comments flung at me when some people chose to make it personal.

As I indicated in that other thread, maybe you should have dealt with it where and with whom it occured, and not let it cloud up the current thread.

'You' as is very often the case on the internet is designated to mean not you in particular but 'you' as Americans.

You used "you" in three locations: first telling me I turned around what you said, second that I criticise other countries but can't take it back, and third that I want to censor your comments. The first you is me, the second you is everyone, and the third you is back to me again? Confusing.

Parenthetical assignments for clarity:

I didn't turn your words, go back and read what you (Tez3) wrote.

I'm waiting for you (Tez3) to back up your statement that I criticise other countries. I haven't, so you (Tez3) are wrong.

I didn't try to censor you, I wrote "I'd suggest you continue to post on any issue that interests you". So you (Tez3) are wrong.

I'm not making this personal, you are. If you (Tez3) are going to accuse me of censorship and bad-mouthing other countries, you better be able to prove it.

I'm waiting ...

 

[Archangel M]

Think this all is "new under the sun"? There is nothing said, felt or thought today that wasnt felt, said or thought by people many years ago. Look at this.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...81530EE32A2575BC1A9639C94689ED7CF&oref=slogin

While contrary to MY personal opinion, you can see that American thought on foreign policy and foriegn opinion was as strong in the 1800's as it is in the 2000's.

I can hold my opinion, and argue about your opinion while still RESPECTING your opinion. At some point it should become obvious what all of our political stances here are (its the same people debating the same stuff) and stop expecting the "Tiger to change its stripes" so to speak. Is it really a suprise where the people in this thread are falling politically?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry to back this post up a bit but and I am not throwing my hat into the ring here but I need to make a historical correction.

To see why people think these things you have to look at history. In the Middle East after the First World War, America and Great Britain basically carved up the region making borders which divided tribes and people, putting local chieftains on thrones and causing problems for us in the present. The peoples of these regions are going to have their views coloured by their history and also by what they are told by their rulers. If their rulers say America is evil they have very little way of finding out for themselves what's true and what's not. When my daughter was working in Dubai she couldn't even log onto a British Cagefighting website as it was censored. There's little hope that a censored Internet will allow political discussion if it won't even allow a sports site just in case there were things on it the rulers didn't like discussed.

Tez

America had little to do with the carving up of the Middle East, It was already carved up when we got there. We (USA) came in later after it was already a mess and proceeded to make things worse.

England, France and Russia were the ones that carved up the Middle East

I could retype all this but it is all here post #50

We've (meaning the USA) have made our share of mistakes, but that was not one of them. We just improved upon the mistakes of others in this case


And to all, and this was pretty much already covered by Tez, “Social Darwinism" was the practice of the British Empire until it was practiced upon them by Nazi Germany. After that it was no longer the practice of the British Empire