Usa And It's Influence.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by ilw@16 January 2004 - 06:20
All this imo is a good thing, but a lot of people bang on about losing bits of our sovereignty. The US has been excluded from this cultural shift and imo the disparity is a source of annoyance, as well as a bit of instinctual dislike for those in power.

one thing i find ironic is that, while a lot of americans are highly interested in the condition of the u.s.'s sovereignty (objections to the influence of the u.n. for example), the u.s. seems generally oblivious to the sovereignty of other countries within our sphere of influence. we (americans) always act bewildered and offended when people in weaker countries try to assert their independence and reject our influence, or reject regimes that our government supports. for a country born from revolution, the u.s. has (generally) been terribly unfriendly toward other countries' revolutionary movements.

[100%]

one thing i find ironic is that, while a lot of americans are highly interested in the condition of the u.s.'s sovereignty (objections to the influence of the u.n. for example), the u.s. seems generally oblivious to the sovereignty of other countries within our sphere of influence. we (americans) always act bewildered and offended when people in weaker countries try to assert their independence and reject our influence, or reject regimes that our government supports. for a country born from revolution, the u.s. has (generally) been terribly unfriendly toward other countries' revolutionary movements.

i agree and is this a small token of proof?
American Airlines pilot Dale Robun Hirsch raises his middle finger while he was being photographed by Brazilian immigration officers


LINK

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by jer2eydevil88@16 January 2004 - 12:19
...Meaning that while your countries were under dictators/facists/communists control my country was reshaping the way the world is!...

Not every other country in the world was under dictator/fascist/communist control. Indeed, depending on what time era you're even looking at, the latter two didn't really exist.

[1234]

The UK shaped modern politics, not the US. One of the few ways the US has shaped modern politics is by brutally repressing democracy in South America. Organising violent coups against democratically elected govts and replacing them with dictators such as Pinochet. Once it got it's hand in, the US moved on to do the same worldwide.

How many here know of Uzbekistan?

[hobbes]

I guess the question I am asking is: Does any government ever act altruistically? Does a leader of a nation tell his people that they are going to have to suffer this winter because all excess grains will be sent to help those starving, because "it is the right thing to do?" Will he remove all the cars and replace them with bikes, will he ask people to give up hot showers in the morning? Would such a fool, even see the revolution coming? You cannot succeed as a leader by stepping backwards.

I would venture that the goal of all elected officials is to elevate the standard of living in his country. How this has been performed throughout history is different. Before, people often attempted to conquer and occupy land, now we find it easier to exert control over regions through "friendly" governments to secure what we need.

I don't think the US is being globally influencial/imperialistic for the fun of it, it relies on so many different things from all over the world, and it is attempting to secure these items. The United States was awarded the Phillipines in the Spanish-American War, we let them choose independence. We have not captured Puerto Rico, Cuba or the Virgin Islands. If they had something we needed, consider them ours, otherwise we don't just pointlessly acquire countries.

So my point is that people are people and governments are governments (each one wanting to become more powerful or secure- how this plays out for the individual citizen varies greatly based on the type of governing body). I made no attempt to justify what my country does. I wanted to explain that it, like all it's powerful predecessors, is doing what it is able to do, to ensure the its future and make it stronger. This is a pattern repeated throughout history. We have control now. On day, when we stumble and fall, your country will take over, and you will strive to do what we are doing. Your methods may be different, but damn straight you will use whatever means necessary to secure what you need.

So, I have no problem with your anger at some of our policies, or how we attempt to secure our future. You are here to be our buddies as it benefits us (and the reciprocol is true), but we are not in a popularity contest. Given the same power, the same standard of living, and the same needs, your country would act no differently. Don't pretend to be somehow morally superior, it just doesn't wash.

[james_bond_rulez]

good points hobbes

[james_bond_rulez]

so i guess IF say, China, is the super power in the future it would be the americans that's whining?



China is gonna rule

and believe me it wouldn't be pleasant if Chinese ruled they suck at it

[ilw]

I think your statement

I would venture that the goal of all elected officials is to elevate the standard of living in his country.

is a bit too simplified, for starters the officials nearly always have vested interests and i'm sure that affects the decisions they make, (for example people have pointed to Bush and associates' oil connections especially considering the current government's policies re. the environment and Iraq). However, the elected officials also have a duty (or if duty doesn't persuade them, the incentive is being re-elected) to represent their populations wishes to a certain degree and public opinion generally does contain a good amount of altruism. Also there are obviously limits to how much you can exploit other countries in the goal of improving your own nations quality of life.

I think someone else mentioned the fact that the world is getting smaller, so i think everyone had better get used to having people look over their shoulder and voice their opinions, especially when self interest is at the detriment to the rest of the world's population. Although America is obviously a sovereign nation I think we deserve some input when the outcome significantly affects us all.

Given the same power, the same standard of living, and the same needs, your country would act no differently. Don't pretend to be somehow morally superior, it just doesn't wash.

Imo no 2 countries would act even remotely the same, I think geography and history have a massive impact on the way countries act and the cultural identity of the people. Overall some would be better, some worse, i don't think you can justify what you seem to see as a complete lack of altruism by saying that, hypothetically, everyone who had the oppurtunity would be as bad (or good) as you.

[hobbes]

ILW,

Of course it is simplified, I want people to read it for the concepts. Even though politicians do have personal agendas, they must overall impress upon the nation that they have made it stronger, that is priority number 1. If we are starving and he is making money for his oil buddies, he is gone.

Charity is not altruism, it is kindness. If I throw a bum a five dollar bill, I am nice, but my life is not encumbered. No leader, who had the power, would ever tell his people that the future of the country was uncertain, he could fix that, but it just wouldn't be "nice". Nobody has ever done that.

Can you show me a single act of altriusm, ever. When has one country ever given of itself for "good", at the expense of it's own citizens, without expecting a bigger payback in the end.

We are not "bad", we are selfish. Any ruler of any country who thinks that what is required to keep his people happy is in jeopardy, and has the power to do something about it, will.

People are people, governments are governments. I wanted to distill out that there is nothing unique to our government, we are just repeating what all those who have proceeded us have done as world powers. It is the nature of the beast. The moral highground taken by the outsiders looking in is simply a facade.

[vidcc]

hobbes...in your arguement you have stated often that what the USA is doing is just what other countries would do given the opportunity. I couldn't argue for or against that as it's probably true, however in your arguement you have made me think that it's not the fact that we do try to look after our own interests, it's the fact that we try to pretend to the rest of the world that we are doing it for a moral reason.
After all we didn't really invade Iraq to help the people of that country, releasing them from oppression...we did it for oil. You yourself i believe kind of insinuated that point.
I wonder if Iraq had no oil would we have done the same ?