Role of the USA should be? - Page 3

Maximus Zeebra · 01-03-08, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

You are saying all this because you are in the military and clearly haven't been home in your own country for quite awhile. You obviously know nothing about whats going on in your own county.

Bodhisattva · 01-03-08, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Red Dave
Consitutionally any treaty the U.S signs becomes part of U.S law

Please point out htis section of the US Constitution...thank you.

Maximus Zeebra · 01-03-08, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

But you see everything wrong thats the problem. The model of capitalism is ultimately flawed and a model to be replaced. It has brought its good things, but those are too few compared to the backsides. The 21st century is not about the selfish interests of the individuals and making the most money for youself. Its not about inventing something and patenting it for the best interest of yourself. Its not about those trivial interests anymore. The communal model will take over no matter how much your fight for capitalism because capitalism in itself is the wrong model.

The only way the world can survive is if we use the "military" model of looking after youself and the man to your right. If everyone does that everyone looks after themself, and everyone is looked after by someone else.

Capitalism is the only reason we are where we are, in stagnation, a society with no real development, technology stuck in patents and drainage of money instead of being used for the common and greater good. The last model is not capitalism but communism, where everyone work for the greater good, where society is equal and everyone is guaranteed a minimum. But the new model will make it possible to also acquire more than the minimum, because it will be a model largely based on communism, but it will also have some elements of capitalism. I would encourage you to read the book wikinomics in order to have any idea what I am talking about, only the concept is overwhelming for someone stuck in the capitalist idea of thinking. Open source software or GNU/Linux is by far the most modern operating system by now, not only is it the most secure with the most modern features and most advanced such, but it is also constantly developing and developing much faster than for example Microsoft Windows.

Linux is essentially a communist way of doing things, where everybody participates in making something optimally and using the power of the common knowledge to make something far superior to the limited Microsoft Windows, being developed by a small team of people with limited collected knowledge and creativity.
This is why the model of communism is superior, not because Windows is more used than Linux at the moment, but because the best will ALWAYS prevail. This is to say for certain that Linux will overtake MS Windows, and it will, no doubt, Microsoft also knows this, which is why they try to drain as much money from as bad a product as possibly by illegal cooperation with the hardware manufacturers. That is the past model, the capitalist model, which in all parts of society is about to be replaced by justice for all, socialistic type of model.

The US in the justful meaning of the world is only an empire in a weak military sense, but yet again, they aren't really because they couldn't conquer anyone else without causing their own destruction. The US is an economic power yes, but so is the ever growing together European continent and now more and more also China. The cultural power of the US is limited to coca cola, hamburgers, movies and music, beyond that the rest of the culture and unculture that has spread the globe is European culture. Yes, European culture. Actually, even hamburgers and all American culture, even the capitalist model only represent a second generation, a small cut, a slice if you want of European culture. Technologically the US thinks they are far ahead, but when it all comes together its China who is going to be the first country with colonies on the moon, mars and beyond. The US just dont have the collected will anymore, the US is at its peak, China is at its beginning.

Realize it GuySgt, the US is a non-changing country with an outdated model that will remain while the rest of the world develops into something else, when all that HAS happend, then maybe again will the US develop. But for now, as it is, the US represents the past, a stagnant society with no vision, a symbol of the 20th century and its 2 wars. A society that finds itself superior even while others are surpassing it.

Thats why you think the US is doing everything right in focusing on others while neglecting themself, and why everyone else is wondering why the US is neglecting itself to hopelessly focus on things it obviously have no chance at fixing. The war on terror is as flawed or even more so than the war on drugs.

Volker · 01-03-08, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

You are saying all this because you are in the military and clearly haven't been home in your own country for quite awhile. You obviously know nothing about whats going on in your own county.

So you can not be in the military and in your own country at the same time

bhkad · 01-03-08, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

Speak softly and carry a big stick? World policeman? Supplier of welfare to the third world? Shining beacon on the hill? Stay home and let the rest of the world take care of itself? Dumping ground for the world's refugees?
IMHO, we should do a lot less of all the things we are doing, and when someone needs our help, it should be done proportionate to how well they treat us. Enemies need not apply for aid of any sort.
But I am open to other opinions. I am hoping for some good responses from other nations here.

My best response is to suggest anyone serious about this commendable thread topic should take a look at this report (PDF download) or watch the video.

Quote:

CSIS has released the Commission on Smart Power's final report, A Smarter, More Secure America. You can download and read the report, watch the video of the report launch, or listen to the report launch.

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post article.

Quote:

Why So Angry, America?

The United States is strongest when it is most engaged with the world.

By Richard L. Armitage and Joseph S. Nye Jr.

Sunday, December 9, 2007;

The world is dissatisfied with American leadership. Shocked and frightened after 9/11, we put forward an angry face to the globe, not one that reflected the more traditional American values of hope and optimism, tolerance and opportunity.

This fearful approach has hurt the United States' ability to bring allies to its cause, but it is not too late to change. The nation should embrace a smarter strategy that blends our hard and soft power -- our ability to attract and persuade, as well as our ability to use economic and military might. Whether it is ending the crisis in Pakistan, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deterring Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, managing China's rise or improving the lives of those left behind by globalization, the United States needs a broader, more balanced approach.

Lest anyone think this approach is weak or naive, remember that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used a major speech on Nov. 26 "to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use 'soft' power and for better integrating it with 'hard' power." We -- one Republican, one Democrat -- have devoted our lives to promoting American preeminence as a force for good in the world. But the United States cannot stay on top without strong and willing allies and partners. Over the past six years, too many people have confused sharing the burden with relinquishing power. In fact, when we let others help, we are extending U.S. influence, not diminishing it.

Read More

From the Washington Post December 9, 2007

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Maximus Zeebra · 01-03-08, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

So you can not be in the military and in your own country at the same time

Yes they can, but as I have debated with GuySgt before it seems like he is one of the people who stays mostly in other countries according to himself he is often stationed abroad.

Volker · 01-03-08, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Yes they can, but as I have debated with GuySgt before it seems like he is one of the people who stays mostly in other countries according to himself he is often stationed abroad.

I think, this has changed a while ago.

Red_Dave · 01-03-08, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

Please point out htis section of the US Constitution...thank you.

Article 6 paragraph two

Bodhisattva · 01-03-08, 08:51 PM

Thanks...
I kept looking in Executive and then Legislative.
VI doesn't get the attention that it deserves...

BUT!

"notwithstanding"

Kinda makes that one a debatable point then

Red_Dave · 01-04-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

Thanks...
I kept looking in Executive and then Legislative.
VI doesn't get the attention that it deserves...

BUT!

"notwithstanding"

Kinda makes that one a debatable point then

But we,re not talking about the consitution and laws of another state, we,re talking about international law, which is largely composed of treatys the U.S is a signatory too. [even if its government refuses to follow it]