Printable View
1. USA
2. Ierland
3. Italy
4. Germany
5. UK
6. Denmark
7. Finland
8. Norway
9. Sweeden
10.Poland
11. Portugal
12. Spain
13. Belgium
14. Swis
15. Russia
16. Greece
17. The rest of the blakans
18. Austria
19, Hungary
20. Baltic states
21. China
22. The Dutch~;)
(Nasty comment - Beirut)
Note that Israel is much smaller then Iran, so I would suspect that a given nuke would be much more of a nation-killer(I think this is what is meant by 'one shot, one kill) if used on Israel then on Iran. bit of a nitpick I supposeQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
On topic, I would say lousy Imperialists, at least now. The high tide of American empire ended in the 30s.
Disco don't be a America hater.
What? We bloody OCCUPIED Nicuragua during the 20s and early thirties almost for a decade. The Platt Amendment of the Cuban constition allowed the US to intervene when ever we felt like it. There was that little revolution in Panama that we orcestrated. Among other things. But at least if we are imperialists now, at least its not over bannanas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
The rules of the game changed a fair bit after the interwar period anyway. Direct occupation was found to be an ineffective way to control land and the resources contained. Economical and political dominance is the way to go these days.
At the very least it's the local puppet/lackey/other partner-in-crime fighting the rebels in the hills and not your own troops if nothing else.
The point is that ones definition of freedom is inextricably bound up with ones culture. I don't think it is a meaningful restriction on my liberty not to be allowed to possess a handgun, but you might. You don't think it's a meaninful restriction on your liberty to be required to get a permit to camp, put up a dwelling, but a nomad might. I could go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
They are neither evil imperialists nor a benevolent superpower, but there are no world powers in existence that are a pure force for neither good or evil.
The problem with the US is that it's government does go on about freedom, and god and this legendary battle between good and evil, where the US is always the good side and anyone the US doesn't happen to be on good terms with at that time is the evil side. This is of course the usual political spin that get's churned out of the propaganda engine on a daily basis in any country, except with the US it's much more brash and unsubtle. It's this sort of thing that can make the US unpopular with those that read newspapers or watch TV news reports.
True enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This version of your point is clear, concise and relevant. I do think there are basic elements of political freedom that are surprisingly (though not completely) cross-cultural, but the specific expression of freedom is most definitely influenced by one's cultural perceptions. A fair point.
I've put this idea of mine in similar threads before : What if it was yours, not USA ?
That power..It corrupts..Talking about empires of the past, I'm not a Rome-geek (actually I hate the era) but I can say something about Ottomans. A book of an American academician praises how dynamically Ottomans were able to conquer and control while staying away from irritating local populaces. But it was a monarch after all. Who foreigners call "Magnificent", Süleyman I was such an influent and authoritarian figure when Ottoman power had hit the peak. However this absolute power had a "ring effect" on him, rocking the "Achilles heel" points of the empire -tiny but fatal-, driving the whole state's fate to decline. I am with the idea that things would be far different if he was shorter of power, both individually and politically.
USA, founded on vast lands by a mixture of people from every other nation, rised rapidly because the physical opportunities, conditions and talented leaders who were comparably more comfortable than many others. Now they have a word in everything, just like Suleyman did among the Europeans, because they have the power. It's hard to play an ethic game with best cards being in your hand. Also it is not meaningful you being ethical, while most of the others are rigorously striving for what you have in your hand. So power caused corruption. Corruption caused irritation. Irritation was taken care of by more power. More power results in even more corruption.
Well actually that is the dynamic of mankind. Everything they are involved has a life cycle and is corrupted as much as it can grow.
After all, take your sticks away from Middle East and I'll think that USA is a peaceful elf land. :tongue:
The extension of this is that whilst the US' self interested actions may well attract scorn and condemnation, it's benign intentions may also be seen as a negative force in a country. Wasn't it LBJ who insisted on shaking hands with the leader of South Vietnam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Disco thats our right as Americans. We get to do whatever we want and NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP US HHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh I'm sorry thats the Canadians my bad.:shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
:laugh4: Go Canada
IMDHO One important thing about freedoms within a cultural framework is equality.
If you are being restricted freedoms in your country on the basis of sex, creed or race then I would say that that country is not as free as one that does not restrict based on ones sex, creed or race.
On a cross cultural point if you deny people the freedoms that your country has then that you are not enabling freedom. On the other hand if you are cooperatively trying to help them gain freedoms that you have I would see that as a positive thing. Like all cross-cultural exchanges there will be things that one side thinks is a great gift the other side sees as a white elephant, this is one of the few time relativism has a pragmatic use. Understanding the context within which someone does something can promote friendship.
I agree in general terms. But from a purely intellectual view inequalities may be seen as being relative. I think that gay people should be free to marry each other. Some others may think that this is not a freedom but an abomination.