Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[Incongruous]

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time with fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

Its a democratic tradition if you VOTE IN the next leadership cadre and those REPRESENTATIVES authorize those brutal and torturous policies. The morality of a government's actions is not necessarily guaranteed by free and fair elections. So, you find the governmental actions of the state of Israel to be loathesome and immoral -- fair enough. You'll find that quite a few people agree with you on that. Even those who are supportive of Israel don't approve of all of their actions.

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom.

Okay.

I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag. We've aided in the overthrow of governments and fought to free some countries. We've supported factions using death squads and worked to bring death squad participants to justice. We've spent millions on aid when disasters occur but spent billions to import (and try to stop the importation of) illegal drugs. Our intentions haven't always been honorable, but many times they were (which didn't necessarily mean what we were doing was effective). We conquered Mexico but gave most of it back. We've invaded a goodly number of the nations bordering the Carribean -- but never stayed (save Panama, and that we eventually gave back as well).

Our current support for Israel does help to keep Israel in business -- though not to the extent that this once was true. I'm not sure I'd label it fascism, though I can see how you'd interpret a number of their policies and actions as a form of tyranny (whatever the label). A Palestinian living in the Authority is facing a heap of difficulties that do restrict their freedom on a number of levels. After 60 years, it is difficult to say what level of suppressive tactics are justified by previously demonstrated threats coming from the other direction. Still, many of the policies and actions I see taken by Israel are harsh, whatever the justification, and you could make an argument that many of them are counterproductive as well.

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

You never claimed to support communism. You do seem, however, to be falling into the trap of perfect idealism in your political thinking that the examples I jokingly referenced do represent. Ideals are important goals to strive for, but expecting a perfect consistency between those ideals and policies and actions in practice is almost a pipe-dream.

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.


You deride me for America's not living up to its own ideals but also for us "falling for our own bollocks." Don't the two points run counter to one another? Besides, its those "delusional" values that we've "fallen" for that have kept us on a better course of action than we might have taken at many points in our history. Do you REALLY want to see a USA that takes power as its sole objective and views all others as targets or obstacles? Don't mock the angels of our better nature -- the world would be worse of without them.

[Redleg]

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

Oh someone seems to have trouble understanding what a democratic tradition is. Since Seamus explained it very well, I will just mock this statement for the utter bollucks that it is. Where is my mocking emoticon......

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

Oh another half thought out mis-representation of what happened in Latin America. So we were bad in Latin America for periods of time, just like we did lots of good in Latin America during other periods of time.

As for support of the Holy Land the biggest backers of Israel up until the late 1960's was not the United States, but a few other European Nations. Now that criticism is valid for the time period after the 1973 war, when the United States started provided the majority of finicial and military aid to Israel.

But then if your born a Palestinian you also have to deal with your own internal organizations fascism, so its a lose-lose situation to be born Palestinian in Israel. And Jordan, and Syria, and yes even Lebanon.

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

Ah the pot calling the kettle black. If you speak bullocks dont be surprise if sarcasm results from such use.

@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.

Oh so the venom in your use of language is not hate but severe criticism. Sorry there, when one uses venom its not severe criticism.

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

You cant have both - Palstinians becoming citizens of Israel makes them Israelis. Now you might be arguing that you want the end of the current Israeli government's mindset toward the Palstinians but you have lost that point with the amount of bullocks that you have spewed regarding the subject.

Emotional arguements are all well and fine, and even useful - but it often loses its logical flow because of the emotion involved.

[Incongruous]

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.

@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?
Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

[KukriKhan]

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

[Incongruous]

Well morall power I think went out the window a long time ago, though some still see the U.S.A as a guide in that respect. Economically, yeah I reckon the U.S.A has alot of leverage in this area though not as much as it did say, ten years ago.
Millitarily, well sure it would still be the best funded and best equipped armed forces in the world, but I reckon without nukes any millitary push would be met with threatening gestures and derisive comments, unless it came with large international backing.
A better way to do things IMHO, it's no where near as expensive as going it alone.

[Marshal Murat]

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

It depends on when you say 'large boomski' anywhere in the world. We could lay a large 'boomski' with a couple B-52s from Diego Garcia, would other nations loose the 'boomski' as well, but besides that...
If we were to lose the possibility of nuclear retaliation, we would still have a sizable economic impact. Our military is one of the best in the world.
Morality? Heck. I don't care.

Bend the rest of the world? Yes. Through a combination of financial, military, covert, and overt actions we could possibly overthrow or launch a conflict into almost any region on the globe. If we make it legitimate enough, we could even install a friendly president (like SWAPO, except for the Communists).

I could honestly care only so much about world opinion. Just let me live my life, and I'll be happy

It's like those obnoxious Brits who come to Orlando, thinking their so hoity-toity as America's best friend. Jeesh.

[Redleg]

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

I would say you are not viewing it as realistic given some of your rethoric regarding the events in Israel. Don't confuse pointing out your errors with an idealistic approach. Now audacity is often viewed as a good thing for leaders to have, so again it seems your failure is to attempt to generalize one group into how all think. Your missing the lessons of men like Martin Luther King, Malcom X, and even some other figures in American History. Democracy allows for freedom of speech. All other forms attempt to curtail that freedom.

Poor attempt there on your part. Calling any nation that supports freedom of speech a fascist state is nothing other then bullocks. Calling it incorrect, calling it misguided, calling it false, and having severe and pointed criticism on its failures is one thing and often apporiated, but calling it fascist is the language of the old anarcy and marxist schools as refered by Seamus with the little red book comment.

As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

Actually the military training portion was just one of the many programs of the School of the America's. That it ended up being one of the major portions of that program does not necessarily equate to the charge of Fascism that you are applying toward it. You might look more into the history of our dealings in Latin America, give you a hint look into the several decade long program of sending the Army Corps of Engineers down into Latin America to build infrastructure for several of those nations. Does it make up for some of our more notorious actions - nope, but it shows a side to the issue that so far you seemly continue to ignore.

As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

Again you are attempting an emotional appeal arguement. Claiming that it does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. Care to guess how many current nations exist on "stolen territory?" Are you upset because you fail to understand and acknowledge the history of the actual UN Mandate that established Israel? Now pointing out the use of terrorism during 1948 that lead to the creation of the current Israel state would be something to discuss, but saying it was stolen actually is sort of laughable. That is like claiming all whites in the United States stole the land from the orginial peoples. Guess what the orginial native american tribes are also land thiefs by your current arguement.

Or are you only complaining about the lands taken by Israel after the 1967 War? Now while one can claim conquered terrority is stolen you will have a hard time proving that Israel on the whole is "stolen territory?" Unless of course you wish to discount the fact that the jewish people have lived in the area for several thousand years just like the other people's within that area.

Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.

Actually it does a bit more then this. Now if our Congress actually upheld the standards imposed on it by the constitution some things would be more then just a nice shiny gloss

@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?

Did I say I hated Hamas as the elected representives of the Palenstian authority? I think thier election demonstrates how fundmentally screwed by their leadership the Palenstine people have become. They traded the facsists of Fatah for the facsists of Hamas. (Using your rethoric) Actually Hamas has a useful purpose if they would renounce the use of terrorism to reach a political end. They are well organized and actually have some decent social programs established to take care of the people. They need to correct themselves on teaching children to be suicide bombers, stop using the rethoric of terrorism and seek a peaceful solution to the issues that they face.

The funny thing about a free society is that it allows people to say what they feel on an issue, be they right, wrong, or confused on the subject. An examble is just this board in fact. The government of the United States has the ability to decide which countries they deal with and how based upon whatever determining factors it wishes to use. And it can even be changed by the nature of who we elect into government. So if the current government of the United States does not want to deal with Hamas - and I am against that position - I can activitly protest or even seek to change that position by voting for someone that see the issue the way I do. Oh wait - the United States is a fascist state.... Laughable

Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

Actually it has nothing to do with that fact they hate Israel. So until your willing to address that point your veiw is not very realistic at all.

[LittleGrizzly]

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.

For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

[Incongruous]

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!

A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

[Tribesman]

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

Here you go Seamus , President Truman....

Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

Would you like the longer version or some of the other quotes (some of which could be deemed as rather nasty) .

Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.

Strange how the mind of a rabid anti-semitic nationalist works

[KrooK]

Sorry but when I see your post then
better be anti-semite than Tribesman :):) :) :)

You keep talking that there have never been jewish conspiracy but75% of your post include words
"jewish conspiracy". I think that is just a mental illness - you see people who yell about jewish conspiracy everywhere but ... no one else see them.

Co oznacza misiek ze jestes chory psychicznie - leczyc sie trzeba.

<Daily report for Tribesmen - words above shows us that KrooK believe into world jewish conspiracy.>

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

I meant that we were both aiding to combat illegal drugs and providing all of the funding FOR drugs with our nearly insatiable appetite for cocaine. The whole Drug War is rather mixed up and internally counterproductive.

I suspect that many Latin Americans would agree with your overall summary -- with a fair deal of justification. I just don't think "El Norte's" poor choices explain more of Latin America's problems than do the actions of Latin Americans.

For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

The argument was, following the Holocaust, that the Jews had been singled out for pogroms and the like more than any other sub-group. One of the reasons this was felt to be the case is that there was no nation that was uniquely "Jewish" in character to serve as a protector/conscience. Without such a state, the Jews anywhere would be a minority and subject to marginalization etc. This viewpoint pre-dated the Holocaust, though the scale of that pogromattic effort generated far more of a groundswell in support of the zionist cause than had anything previously.

Certainly there were people living in the region. This has been the case for more than 3 millenia. My comment was that there hadn't been an independent "Palestine" (believed to be etymologically linked to Philistine) in 23 centuries or more at the time of the UN decision to create Israel. The region had been the property of someone else. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the region was part of a League of Nations mandate administered by Great Britain. This mandate was then assumed by the UN. The UN can be faulted for failing to take into adequate consideration the opinions/preferences of the local population, but to argue that the decision to create Israel superceded the sovereignty of some existing autonomous entity is incorrect.

[Redleg]

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

To bad your blind - only looking at the negatives. So the United States did no good rebuilding Germany and Japan. Has done no good in South Korea. Has not done any good in Latin America. Yep as stated before we have also done very bad things in Latin America so your attempt at sarcism here is completely misplaced. To bad your having a poor time arguing your position.

You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

Good thing I never stated something like that now isn't? What I have stated is that we have done both.

I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

Some of the postive programs - as in teaching sound argiculture practices should be defended. Now that doesn't excuse the training of right wing death squads that abound in the late 1970's and 1980's, but those programs demonstrate that not all of the school was based upon military training. Your having a very difficult time actually reading what is written versus what you wish to believe.

As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

Oh the anti-American stance is definitily showing there. What is it that makes you hate the United States so much that you continue to believe we are facsists? Is it because you want us to play the world police supporting the world with our resources and wealth? Sorry bud - that is not how the real world works.

Israel has a right to exist as a nation - they have demonstrated that they have that right to exist by defeating their enemies not once but several times. Compline all you want about how Israel came to exist - but that was a direct reflection of the guilt that Europe had concerning the genocide committed by Germany on the Jews - and most of Europe's complacy in that genocide. The United States supported the creation of the jewish state and the old USSR decide not to veto its creation.

So what we are left with in the political reality is that the state of Israel and the Palenstine's have to learn to live with each other. What the United States does or doesn't do to help that along is not near as important as what both of those groups have to do.

The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!

Since most Western Nations also boycott the Hamas elected Palestine Authority - your anger is just marginally mis-directed. Its not the United States straving the Palestine people - Hamas has been given some conditions to recieve aid - so it seems that the Palestine Authority is who is straving its own people. So if you only going to look at one side of the issue - you can not claim to be grounded in reality.

A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

Never stated that the United States did not look toward the welfare of its own people first and foremost. In fact it seems you have been misreading what has been written.

Are you attempting to claim that the United States does not support Freedom of Speech? Its very easy to provide evidence that the United States does indeed support Freedom of Speech, so again attempting such rethoric with me only weakens your arguement, and demostrates that your position is not based on any real merit - but an anti- stance if you like.

[Incongruous]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.

Panama would not only have been stolen from the Columbians, but occupied as a U.S. state, thus providing us with a springboard from which to acquire the rest of Central America and possibly the Northern tier of South America with its oil resources.

During the First World War, we would have a) never intervened, thus allowing the participants to bleed even more and for Germany -- and possibly France -- to have followed Russia into internal collapse (leaving us Britain's sole rival), or b) intervened early, allowing our limited ground forces but decently sized navy to be used to acquire German overseas territory without any real losses to ourselves without ever suffering the Argonne.

I'll set aside World War II, simply too many variables to consider.

We could have used atomic weapons on massed Chinese "volunteer" forces during the Korean War. This would have ended the intervention. They made an ideal target and the results would have saved thousands of American lives and allowed us to expand South Korea to include about half of present-day North Korea without including the blighted zones.

During the Hungarian Crisis of 1956 we could have intervened on behalf of the non-communists and launched a strike against the Soviet Union when they failed to withdraw immediately. Remember, Soviet abilities to deliver nuclear weapons were limited (which is why sputnik, not long after this, scared us silly). We were well aware that their liquid-fueled rockets were not reliable intercontinentally -- but that SAC was. A few European targets would have been immolated (omelets and eggs you know), but the Soviets would have been crushed, their armies gutted with nuclear weapons, and then we could have used latent separatism in the USSR to break them up into pieces (but working to establish wonderful relations with Azerbaijan and outright annexing large chunks of thinly-populated but resource-rich Siberia).

I could go on, but I'll cease throwing examples and summarize. There are NUMEROUS occasions where a strictly rational and totally self-interested USA could have acted differently and rewarded itself far more. Our morality may be imperfect and certainly has been imperfectly and sometimes unevenly applied -- but I believe the world is better off for us having that outlook. We are not the saints we sometimes like to consider ourselves, but we are a far cry from the viscious bastards you seem to see in us.

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

Mid-East stability is a pipe dream. It has never been stable for more than a decade or so at a stretch. US efforts have been no more successful -- and not much less successful -- than anyone else's. If the locals ever decide on stability, that might change. However, as the Middle East is the quintessential example of the normal form of human governance -- warlordism -- I don't think this likely. Note: If you don't think Warlordism is the norm and nation-states the abberation, you need to read more history.

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

I thought you were the champion of us getting "real?" Wouldn't it be more logical for us to encourage them to kill each other by the cart-load so that our acquisition of resources would be that much easier? No thanks, I'll take our current best efforts -- flawed though they be -- over your absolutist answer [Israel must be phased out and and Arab dominance re-established -- not that you put it quite that clearly].

[Conradus]

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.

Without trying to hijack the thread, but Bopa has a point you somewhere. What the USA did in her past with those mentioned examples was -most of the time- the best it could do for itself. Or do you believe that a nation, now the most powerful in the world that's having great difficulty sustainting two foreign wars could have occupied/annexed countries that were about as accessible and hostile a century and a half ago when said nation was far from the most powerfull around.

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

We did face significant opposition in the Phillipines (1901-1905) -- and bested it.* The tactics used were "acceptable" according to the standards of the time, but totally unacceptable today. Opposition in Cuba would have been no more difficult, and the logistics of applying force would have been vastly easier. Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.

* Yes, I am aware that resistance was never completely eliminated and that the current Mindanao separatists can actually trace their origins to those groups founded to oppose U.S. occupation following the elimination of the Spanish presence. In practice, however, the opposition forces were marginalized and kept so throughout the period of U.S. control of the Phillipines.

[Incongruous]

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day

[Redleg]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

This is as Seamus alreadly states such a load of bullocks that its just so darn funny. So your discounting the relief efforts to those stricken last year by the Tusmia that hit several nations in the Indian Ocean. Where is the securing of material gain from that action?

So again your reality is not a true reality.

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

I would say your not arguing from a realistic point of view - realists understand that both sides have created the problem. So when one argues only against Israel - I find it very doubtful that they are being realistic, because avoidance of the whole picture is not realistic. I find all sides have done wrong and continue to do wrong in regards to Israel and the Palenstine issue.

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

Frankly this statement is completely laughable. When one group has as its manifesto to destroy Israel nothing an outside power can do will prevent the violence from happening. While I detest Jimmy Carter - he did do one thing right during his Presidency - and we see where that has gotten the peace process in Israel. Or have you forgetten that bit of history also?

[Redleg]

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

Sorry Incorrect once again the United States did not divide the Middle-East for the United States own good. You might look a little closer to home in Europe for the two nations with that honor. Again trying to base your reality on a terrible understanding of history shoots you in the foot.

Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

End racism in Israel - first one would have to end racism in the United States and all of Europe first. So again unrealistic expectations do not make for a realistic viewpoint.

Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

Are you begining to realize that your view is history is distorted from reality. Blaming the United States for the divisions created by Britian and France after WW1 when the Ottaman Empire was desolved because of their defeat in that war?

The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.

I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day

Whats the problem - can't cope with the reality of the world? Care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world right now?

[Conradus]

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We're trying, with our blood and treasure, to buy enough time for the locals to establish relatively stable and somewhat democratically-driven systems of governance and to allow those new forms to begin the process of institutionalization. This transition is something that took us in the USA at least a decade -- without a guerilla opposition to face. Not an easy task.

Numerous voices -- some our own -- think that the project is a pipe dream.

[yesdachi]

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

If the US were a conquering nation we certainly wouldn’t be helping so many others who live in countries that are unfriendly to us and we surly wouldn’t be loosing lives everyday in an effort to build stability in the Middle East.

I would love to run out a scenario where grandma and grandpa sent their money to the “Conquer the world fund” instead of the fund to help country X with disaster Y. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans are moral and feel obligated to help others less fortunate but there are a lot of powerful corporations and selfish government officials who don’t feel the same and make America look bad.

But look at it like this…The average household in America gives $1,620 a year to charity. If that money (if my math is right, 186 billion dollars) was sent to the “Conquer the world fund” I think the people that bitch about the selfish USA would be justified but instead they are just wrong.

186 billion would pay for a sweet merc army!

[PanzerJaeger]

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

[drone]

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

As a bonus, I believe it is a 501(c).

[LittleGrizzly]

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

I suppose the other part of it is Americas claim that it does things for the good of the world, the majority of the time its just its own national interests guiding policy, which is fair enough just don't claim to be helping when your just acting through national interest....

[Tribesman]

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .

[Incongruous]

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.

Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.

[yesdachi]

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

So you don’t think we are the good guys?


And Tribes, I am not looking to be considered special I am just defensive about comments like this.

Well moral power I think went out the window a long time ago – Bopa about the US

Our government acts big and stupid (like all other governments, we just happen to have one of the biggest therefore its seen acting stupid more often) but to suggest the country is without morals is short sighted. Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

A few posts later Bopa says

I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like

If that is true, and we were filled with immoral people wouldn’t we be pillaging countries less powerful than we are rather than sending charity, supplies and soldiers there to help them.

Look at the people on this board that are from the US, do you find them without morals?

Don’t let your predigests for American politics spoil your view of Americans. Name something that the US has done that is crummy to another country and then ask a regular American if they agree with the decision. I don’t think so. I still get pissed that we didn’t send a few troops to the Falklands back in the 80’s.