This just in - pounding Iraq

[Cabby]

It's when America thinks it ISN'T any different from other nations is when the trouble begins.

Comparing America to the ancient Romans, the Colonial Brits, or any other "empire" of the past is ridiculous.  And ignorant of the way Americans feel about their place in the world.

Cabby

[Park]

Toad - Times have changed, true - the method of conquest has also changed. But the reasons haven't - nationalistic self-interest is the cornerstone, as much as it ever was. The need to generate and then support an affluent society is not a new development. The Romans did it, we British did it and now the US is following in our foot-steps.

The difference is in method - conquest by force is unacceptable in a so called civilised world - multi-national companies are now the expeditonary forces of Western world.

I also think that if our governments thought they could get away with it, they'd use more unscrupulous ways to secure their position, economically, territorially and militarily.

Are you seriously asserting that America is not engaged in an economic conquest of the world? Is altruism the cornerstone of American big business?

 

We're in it because it's easier to do this than have to join in a World War somebody else starts every 35 years or so!

You have heard of the Wall Street Crash, I assume? It is as much of a factor in the advent of WW2 as the Versailles treaty. World War 2 was a global conflict both in execution and origins.

[LJK Raubvogel]

The US is trying to conquer the world financially? Huh? Have you seen the latest figures for our trade deficit? If we are trying to conquer the world financially, we are doing a piss poor job of it.

[ezdoc]

The fact is that US/UK planes are not "just" being "tracked" or "painted".  There is a real shooting war going on inside the no-fly zones, and the ROE of allied pilots is to respond accordinly to Iraqi missle launches.  I'm sure any of us would react to being shot at. And this would be expected who ever the situation.

[Toad]

   

Originally posted by Park:
... But the reasons haven't - nationalistic self-interest is the cornerstone, as much as it ever was....

US Nationalistic Self-Interest in taking the lead after WW2?

Absolutely! Since it is in our very best "Nationalistic Self-Interest" to keep our sons and daughters from dying in another World War on the European continent!!

Thank Gawd we didn't and we're NOT following in your footsteps! There would have already BEEN another World War!. You folks managed to be "at peace" all the way from 1918 until 1939. We of course retreated into isolationism after the First World War slaughter in Europe. I totally understand that US sentiment now; I didn't when I was younger. 21 entire years! WTG!

I think nearly every WW2 US vet I ever talked to, every "Rosie the riveter" whose husband didn't come home vowed that we could "never let it happen again". They were determined that THEIR sons and daughters wouldn't have to go through what they AND THEIR PARENTS had to go through. This sentiment, from the group that bore the burden, explains why the US stepped up to do the job after WW2.

Economic conquest of the world? ROFLMAO!

Yeah, we're using "Thermonuclear Free Trade" bombs mostly. We open our markets without restriction to nearly ANYONE, whether or not they open their markets to us. It's a devastating tactic.    

Then the "piece de resistance"... the suprise "trade deficit". We run incredibly huge trade deficits with almost all our trade partners. We sucker you guys into selling more stuff to us than you will buy from us. This is where we really clean up!

These two tactics just have you guys befuddled, admit it.    

Even Tac thinks we have to have US troops overseas to make everyone sell to us.    

BTW, on the Versailles Treaty thing, check out Woodrow Wilson's position on how to treat the defeated countries. Compare and contrast his position with that of the representatives of England and France. Unfortunately, no one listened to Wilson.

Wall Street crash? Yes, you have found us out again! We deliberately caused the financial destruction of the US in 1929 in order to plunge the US into the Great Depression. (Knowing of course that this would spread to the entire world, cause a World War and thus insuring US hegemony in the peace that followed.     )

The fact that European economies weren't too robust either had nothing to do with it.    

You guys crack me up!    

<edit> First Dowding, now Park? Why the change? You like Keith better than Hugh?  



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 03-04-2001).]

[Tac]

"Even Tac thinks we have to have US troops overseas to make everyone sell to us"

Nope. I think that they are there to keep the markets flowing and stable...for your own interests. The Brits during their colonial periods did it, so did the Spanish and the dutch and the vatican. Its a primary part of the equation. Markets you depend on must be kept open by any means neccessary.. be it diplomatic, economical pressures or troops in the area.

oh and BTW, the US is not trying to take over the world. Bill Gates already beat the US gov to it  

"US Nationalistic Self-Interest in taking the lead after WW2?

Absolutely! Since it is in our very best "Nationalistic Self-Interest" to keep our sons and daughters from dying in another World War on the European continent!!

Thank Gawd we didn't and we're NOT following in your footsteps! There would have already BEEN another World War!. You folks managed to be "at peace" all the way from 1918 until 1939. We of course retreated into isolationism after the First World War slaughter in Europe. I totally understand that US sentiment now; I didn't when I was younger. 21 entire years! WTG!

I think nearly every WW2 US vet I ever talked to, every "Rosie the riveter" whose husband didn't come home vowed that we could "never let it happen again". They were determined that THEIR sons and daughters wouldn't have to go through what they AND THEIR PARENTS had to go through. This sentiment, from the group that bore the burden, explains why the US stepped up to do the job after WW2."

I agree wholeheartedly. Europe's tendency towards armed conflict up to that time was an almost chronic illness. It took one world war (1st) to show them and the world the potential horror of modern weapons used en masse and another one (2nd) which eventually took the war-making power from their governments and into the hands of the civilians...which after the 2nd war saw an entire generation wiped out, the continent a rubble heap and economically in their knees. Talk about needing to suffer a stroke and have near death experiences to wake up to what life is about!

I betcha if Europe had been left alone to rebuild/settle issues without international counseling London, Berlin, Paris, Oslo, etc would be glowing with radiation by now.


[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Toad]

First a sidenote. You can't compare the US role in the world after WW2 to the roles of colonial era powers like Spain and England.

The "colonial" mode of operation was totally different, often involving military conquest and the installation of a government and bureaucracy by the "Mother Country". The colonies existed solely for the benefit of the "Mother Country" and trade was essentially one way. You just can't compare the two roles.

Now, to one of the major points of your post.

Look at it from the other side as well Tac.

It is in the absolute best interest of the SELLING countries to make sure the markets are "flowing and stable".

Is it more important that the US receive imports or that the exporting nation receives huge amounts of US currency?

I think we may survive without cheap toys from China (substitute almost any nation you like)...but will China (substitute almost any nation you like) make it without the US currency?

It applies to oil as well. The US is probably the largest consumer, thus the largest market. Were the US to lose its sources of foreign oil, the US economy would almost certainly collapse. (I do think we should be conserving and working on alternatives, btw.)

This collapse would affect the entire world in short order. Face it, the US market is a vital part of the world economy.

So, any nation that wants to "upset the apple cart" on oil flowing into the US is going to destroy the World Economy as well.

We all depend on each other now, like it or not. I think any half-way intelligent government recognizes that fact.

I think we can safely bring the troops home. The nations that depend on Exports to the US market will find a way to do it without US troops deployed around the world.  

If not.... well, one more lesson ought to do it, eh?  

"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect har-mo-neeeeeeeee!"

(Now where did I put my pyramid crystal?)

 

[ispar]

 

Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:

"
The biggest "danger to mankind" are all those sorry nations that have yet to enter the 20th Century,  much the less the 21st.

Cabby


 

Let me see if I can come up with an inoffensive way to say this... nope.

Cabby, YOU PIECE OF SH*T!
I believe that you can go to hell now.
That will be all, thank you.

Oh, and thanks to everyone else for their
well stated and clear answers to my original question. I think I'll get out of here now, my mind isn't working quite right in this atmosphere.

ispar