aegyptos

It would be tough though without Germany injecting Lenin into Russia's bloodstream.

That's quite true but it would have been a local Pacific affair of short duration. The US would smash Japan with the aid of Britain, France, China and the Netherlands

Kind of fun once in a while

Infinite Chaos

Carrying on with conjecture..

Do you not think the Bolshevik revolution would have carried on regardless? There were plenty of homegrown radicals and the Imperial rule was deeply unpopular, I think the seeds had already been sown.


Ah, remember your original point - what if the U.S. hadn't joined WW1? Would there be an independent Britain, France or Netherlands to join with the U.S.? The last century would have been very different if the U.S. had remained isolationist until threatened.
As for China, they were already mostly under the rule of the Japanese so the U.S. would have been alone against Japan.

Maximus Zeebra

I believe the US best serves themselves as a nation, its people and other nations by continuing to be a nation of inventors and innovation, unlike they are now the symbol of the past and the symbol of a falling and stagnant society, desperately trying to hold on by force.

I think the US best serves themselves by going back to those roots of curiosity and innovation, and continue to build their own society and focus on how to make new models for things, example, create a new political model to build your future on instead of using the completely outdated and almost parody of a politics that you have now. Focus in building the best society for yourself with what you already have, and to best expand the knowledge and skills of your citizens and aspire to make everyone in your nation happy.

I think the US best serves the rest of the world by sharing their knowledge and tools, imagine how Africa could for example flower with all the knowledge the US have. But instead you hide away everything in patents and create hinders for continued human development.

Wikinomics is a very interesting concept, not only for economics, but also for the society in general. Its about time the world starts sharing with each other and realize we are on people rather than hiding our knowledge to others and hiding behind fences of borders and nationalism.

I think this model best serves both the US and Europe.

__________________
I am just waiting for some American to pick apart my 5000 word reasoning, by a slight spelling mistake in a sentence, to prove why I am wrong, and he is right.

American politics, knowledge acquired by the people.

GySgt

Am I? I see the UN for what it is. Is it an organization of human assistance? Is it an organization that furthers the mission of justice? Is it an organization that protects the weak? Hardly on all accounts. It is merely an organization that mimics the mission of its failed predecessor. It is an organization in which nations can come together and argue out their grievances without guns and bombs. It doesn't matter where it is located. It can be hosted on Russian ground and the make up would still be of dictators and thugs seeking preservation from greater more powerful nations who and enslaved to international laws of soveriegnty that celebrate their offices.

Yet, the majority of the world relies upon the UN for any kind of humanitarian aid. But why would dictators ever vote to remove another dictator? Why would Russia or China ever lift a brow to consider the oppression of others when they don't even represent their own populations?

One sided? Do Rwandans see it as one sided too? How about those non-Arabs in Sudan? Or those who suffer oppression under their tyrants around the globe? There is only one side that matters and that is truth. Other sides are cloudy and shady in description. How long did it take for the UN to pass approval to help the people of Darfur? And now that it has passed approval, no country brings it up. They use the UN as an excuse for apathy, and then when the excuse is gone they pretend the problem doesn't exist. But, the UN isn't supposed to be an organization that cares about human suffering, remember? It is only a body meant to argue against one another in place of violence....no matter the cost of the powerless and innocent.

One of the most tragic mistakes of post WWII was to allow Russia and China a seat at the Security Council. We freely handed them the power to cuff us at every turn. And now we have a UN that bows to Iran's needs, because two of the security council members conduct business with them. Speaking of, when was the last time the UN condemned the behaviors of the House of Saud, which is the brutal family that encourages Sunni Wahhabism to extreme behaviors against non-Arab tribes? Of course, this is taboo, because America conducts business with them. And since America is the center of this world and modernism (critics hate to admit it, but even the UN headquarters in New York), America's survival, no matter who's business it employs, affects the prosperous entities around the globe.

This is the "great" UN. This is the "great" body of individuals that pretend to care about their fellow human being as it deliberates for years and years over the slaughtering of people. This is the "great" UN that helplessly stands by as criminals and thugs destroy humanity in their individual locales. And the truth is that the tyrants exist not because of their power, but because we empower them as equals.

Hail the "great" UN. Like the sentiments that saw the creation of the UN in the first place, it's time for a new organization. But this new organization would have to be built on new thinking. Outdated international laws that continue to treat thugs and criminals as equals to free nations is a tragedy this world no longer needs to suffer. The free have the power and we are wasting it clinging to old orders of organization. Europe fancies itself as the future, but lunges at every opportunity to use the past as a model. America continues to enslave itself to old manners of thoughts and order as it seeks "stability" at any cost to the populaitons. Afghanistan and Iraq was a step in the right direction, but our people are so trained to believe in the past they refuse to glance at the future.

We live in an age of globalization that is only gaining in momentum. Our critics love to bring this up as if it is supposed to encourage further deliberations among civil nations, but they refuse to acknowledge that tis also means that such connections means more responsibility towards each other. A global body of nations should be about that globalization, not about drawing lines between who is worthy of the basic human rights and who is not in maccordance to the tyrant's demands for preservation.

__________________

GySgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Infinite Chaos

I would say tinged with a fairly typical U.S. view. I don't mean that as an insult - I've read your type of views about the U.N. from practically every American I've ever encountered in this type of forum. Some range from "we don't vote for it so why pay" to "if only we could run it - it would be run properly" (which sort of encompasses the "why did we let U.S.S.R. and China join or have a seat on the Security Council) view.

The UNHCR and some of the other arms work very well - some of these have headquarters based outside the U.S. but I don't think that makes the difference.

No disagreement from me there.

In its current form yes, I agree but my main point was the U.S. is highly unlikely to kick the U.N. headquarters off its territory or soil.

Don't forget the U.S. and U.K. pushed through resolutions on Iraq that gave international legitimacy to invading Iraq twice. When it's in the U.S.'s interests the U.N. is a very useful tool.
Sudan (Darfur), Rwanda and many other places are not of interest to the major powers so nothing is done until too late. There are U.N. troops in Congo / Zaire and have been for many years but they have important minerals we need for our industry.

I'm not saying it's right - it's economic reality. Currently, the U.N. does some things well (where there's clear economic interest - usually to the west) and badly in others (where there is only a humanitarian interest)

Please see above and previous post. Statistically, the U.S. has used the veto more often than any other Security Council member since 1970.


Hardly.

The previous track record of those seeking punitive resolutions is not good and while the U.S. appears internationally to seek to invade yet another oil state when the case in the last invaded state is not good should give everyone cause to tread carefully.

You answered your question.

My view entirely.

I agree the sentiment of the rest of your post. Maybe we are closer in some regard than others, the U.N. does not work perfectly but in some regards I believe some of its organs do a great job. I certainly would prefer to see the U.N. extracted from U.S. soil and I think the permanence of seats on the Security Council should stop - as should just who is allowed a veto on all matters.

donsutherland1

rivrrat

I think we should take care of our own country, worry about our own freedom and liberty, be concerned about who is running our own government, invest in making sure we are able to be independent of any other country or government or resource they have. And, let every other country do the same as they see fit.

In other words, mind our own *******ed business and take care of our *******ed business instead of ignoring our own problems while pretending to give a crap about someone elses.

__________________
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

GySgt

That's because it was rhetorical. I see the UN for what it is and not for what people think it is. It has its uses, but any mission of substance is better left to those powerful nations that have to defy the wishes of the UN's dictator ridden body.

GySgt

This is very well written and also very close to what we have always done. But it always looks far better on paper.

The problem is that the world sees how we have held up human rights in our country and comfortably ignore the suffering of everyone else (unless they were European of course) while we conducted business with their oppressors. They have also seen us rush to uphold the stability of established governments (no matter how vile and expired it is) for "stability's" sake. Also, it looks good on paper to suggest "good relations" with rising powers i.e., Russia and China, but to many populations this means that we "support" their oppression. Are we not blamed for every dictator's oppression that shook an American hand in the Middle East? The power in the Middle East (economically and religiously) is Saudi Arabia and that hasn't been to our benefit. And economic sanctions seems a far more pleasant deal than warfare, but as we have seen the Al-Queda sentiments in regards to the starving children in Iraq or the Iranian sentiments for their sanctions prior to 9/11, this is also a tool used to hate us.

And sharing ideas with the forces who deal in oppression and communism doesn't exactly weigh in the free world's interests. Why on earth would we want a balance?

GySgt

But it's because we don't give a crap about anybody else that we are in the position that we are in today. We have been stumbling around for decades lost in a world that we inherited quite abruptly after WWII and only had the European model of organization to call on for guidance. We literally had no idea what to do. Given the magnitude of our burden, it's amazing we made so few mistakes. When people frown on the very few Pinochets there were during that period and declare us monsters, they are refusing to acknowledge the tremendous behaviors of imperialism that went on before us by our friends. However, we did begin propping up those dictators that would stand in our corner and deny the Soviets and we practiced a behavior that was beneath us.

- Conducting business with tyrants just to hold back the prospect of efficient war has not been in our best interests.

- Celebrating our basic human rights while those business partners abused and oppressed their populations has not been in our best interests.


Instead of dealing with our obvious problems, we have ignored them in a hopes that they will go away. Also, you have to appreciate what our role has been in the last 250 years. Do you realize that we have seen, destroyed or aided in destroying eleven different empires in every single culture on earth? We are the last empire standing; only ours is an empire of culture and economics. Since this culture is largely based on the basic human rights principles of freedom, it has "infected" those societies that either want nothing to do with it or struggle to keep their people from it. Also, remember all thos empires that have been crushed? That's means hundreds of millions of people around the globe that hate us for ruining their parties. Our celebration of capitalism has widened the gap between successful nations and failing nations and this is only going to get wider.

Consider this...Despite the horrible behaviors of the Soviets and Russians for centuries upon ethnic people, despite the overwhelming prosperous atmosphere our nation has brought to the world, and despite our thirst for knowledge and understanding in the general society,.....we are hated so? This makes no sense when one actually looks at what has occurred. The Soviets religiously oppressed hundreds of millions of Muslims, yet we are hated because we have a base in Saudi? We are criticized for our part in the Cold War that saw certain dictators celebrated, yet we are hated bexcause we took one of those mistakes out? The entire free world has us to thank daily for what we do everywhere, yet we are hated for staring down obvious enemies of humanity and civil rights in different regions? This all makes no sense to me.

I simply don't understand how people can praise "globalization," yet refuse to acknowledge that this means dealing with the tyrants one way or another. Our problem is that we can't seem to decide how to be consistant while continuing our lifestyles and securities.

We better start caring. We have little problems as compared to what is festering all around us and it is starting to infect us.