Americas place in the world

Vagif Abilov

AFAIK it's more tricky. Here's somewhat simplified version. When USSR invaded Afghanistan, USA invested a fortune in Bin Laden's troops (I read about hundreds of millions USD). But in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the relationship broke since Bin Ladden was not selected as part of aliance forces. It's about this time he turned against his former sponsors. But I'll never believe they didn't know what kind of monster he was. The moral of the story: don't give guns to maniacs, whoever side they take. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway

Vagif Abilov

Mike Mullikin wrote: As for Russia having won it by herself? I don't think so! Russia's 30 million casualties. A huge portion can be attributed to Stalin himself. Is that the kind of super-power you would wish on the world? When USA joined the battles in Europe, it was obvious that Russia was winning on their side. It was after Stalingrad. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway

Tomaz Stih 0

Frankly, I think your claims of aid are somehow arrogant to the rest of the world. There are 170 countries in the world and you aid dozen hotspots. These are mostly related to your interests, such as: keeping nuclear weapons out of reach of hostile countries, keeping the price of oil down to protect your economy's growth, etc. This is not wrong. In fact, the law of invisible hand of Adam Smith plays a major role in this. America entered Afghanistan to protect its country from further terrorist attacks. But as a (hmm...) "collateral benefit" Afghan women are more free today that they were half a year ago. They might even get the right to vote. America entered Iraq because it feared that the 70ties and the OPEC would repeat in form of Saddam Hussein shaping the world oil price. But as a side effect, Kuwait was liberated. As soon as you start explaining only the "collateral benefits" and forgetting about your own role you are repulsive to the rest of the world. Your arrival to those countries was bilateral. The relationship to those countries is based on healthy foundation of bilateral benefits. So there is absolutely no need to feel superior in this relationship. Seriously, if you ever compared all the aid in the world you'd realize that its not one promile of your military budget. Please do so and report here, I might be wrong. The true America's role in the world are its philosophical and related science achivements. The free economy and laissez faire capitalism has enabled your country to attract all the top world scientists that saw a better chance for their future because America worships and rewards individual achievement more then any country in the world. The laws that allowed people to establish a company for as little as 500 USD, in the garage, the stock exchange that poured risky capital into two junkie'lookin technies, such as Wozniak and Jobs. That's the true power of America and you should really stick to that. Tomaz

Tomaz Stih 0

> frankly, we (typical average Americans) don't hear much about > the billions and billions of dollars we give to the rest of the Because it's not really there. It is a myth. What you personally do wrong here is you compare all the world to "the rest of the world" and define the rest of the world as sandy buttholes that darn burn your flag. The fact is that all of the world to which you never poured a penny (...not in this half of the century) stood at your side when you decided to kick Osama Bin Laden. And that sandy buttholes live dozen countries out of 170 on this planet. Tomaz

Stuart van Weele

The numbers still seem skewed. Japan has sent a fair amount of technical aid to China and other countries in SEA, but 15 billion a year is hard to believe. That table looks like a case of comparing apples to oranges. It's also from a website prompting more aid to developing countries, so the authors have plenty of reason to fudge things, making the USA look worse than it is. There is another way to look at the numbers. The total spent by these countries is about 42 billion per year. Has this money bought any lasting change? In most cases, we might as well have dumped the aid supplies into the sea. It results that count, not the cost.

Tomaz Stih 0

I couldn't agree with you more. I think the great achievements of nations are not coincidences, but a result of their actions in the past and present. Simply put, the future does not exist. We create it. Liberty and individualism have been proven superior to collectivism by history. Current balance of power reflects this fact. The good things: GDP, landing man on the moon, inventing microcomputer and other achievements would not be possible without laissez faire capitalism, the stock exchange, low taxes and active role in world's trade (which implies political and sometimes military involvement). It's all related. It's all part of culture as a whole. The best way to judge countries' culture is to judge it trough pride, liberty and prosperity of its individuals. If the world has come so far that "supposedly culturaly inferior country, degraded in minds of some people to McDonald's, Chewing gum and Hollywood" can rule the world, then it does not deserve any better. This simply demonstrates how shallow these stereotypes really are. Regards, Tomaz

Chris Losinger

sorry buddy, the US gave 9.5 BILLION dollars last year in economic development aid. get your own facts straight. -c

Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse

William De Pretre

Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: If it wasn't for the U.S., the world would be eating sourkraut for dinner every night, and washing it down with a healthy helping of sake. And to think the US at first couldn't be bothered to intervene in "yet another European war"

Tomaz Stih 0

Well, Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003. That is 3%, I was wrong saying that it is a promile. However, 9.5 billion dollars to Russia, Afghanistan, Kosovo means 0.0 cents to EU... So once again, don't talk that you're putting your money to "the rest of the world" because you're humiliating us all that don't get a darn penny from you with it. I am not anti american, but I do find this behaviour utterly repulsive. Like...who cares where do you put your money into...we do it too, but we don't humiliate the US by naming you "the rest of the world where we put our billions to". Tomaz

William De Pretre

Stan Shannon wrote: Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. All true but the most visible "culture" is mass market crap. Image is everything and the image that America projects is mostly rampant consumerism. That said the US have a fair share of artists, philosophers, authors who form a valuable part of world culture. A pity they are not promoted as well as Friends & McDonalds. Stan Shannon wrote: As far as interfering with other countries, I don't think it is a matter of choice. If it were, the vast bulk of Americans would opt to just stay at home and let beligerant countries alone. Our founders warned us about 'foriegn adventures'. The problem is that we are typically the only ones able to do anything about problems as they arise around the world. And the US would like to keep it that way, isn't it ? Which American would want another superpower to compete with ? But regarding the meddling in other countries the US have had their fair share of dirty deeds as well. The CIA has quite a track record in removing unsuitable regimes (all in the name of stopping the commies) and no matter how generous the US is the people will always will remember that (perhaps even better than all the benefit they get from the US). The US can pour billions in Kosovo (benefitting muslims) and all people will remember is their unrelenting support for Israel while that country happily oppresses the Palestinians (a picture of a dead child remains far longer than a little boy going to a school funded by the US). PS : Echelon & Carnivore don't really promote a nice picture of the US either.

Brit

I believe Bin Laden really started to hate the US because Saudi Arabia invited US troops there. (Not because he wasn't part of the coalition.) Bin Laden hated the idea of the infidel troops in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia (the homeland of Mohammed and Mecca). But Bin Laden says he hated the West already in the 1980s. It's just that his appetite for hate wasn't fully realized until the Gulf War. But, yes, the US did give arms to fanatical Islamic fighters - many of the same ones who ( around 1995 ) formed into the Taleban. (I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that they were Bin Laden's troops.) On the other hand, Mossad, the Northern Alliance leader who fought against the Taleban until he was assassinated in September, was also armed by the US against Russia.

Vagif Abilov

Well said Tomaz! Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway

Stan Shannon

William De Prêtre wrote: All true but the most visible "culture" is mass market crap. Image is everything and the image that America projects is mostly rampant consumerism. Just a couple of quick points. I would argue that rampant consumerism is a by-product of American culture not the culture itself. Secondly, although I am no fan of rampant consumerism, it does not represent one of the great evils of world history. If you do not wish to participant in it, than don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. William De Prêtre wrote: And the US would like to keep it that way, isn't it ? Which American would want another superpower to compete with ? . I think most Americans were more comfortable with our pre-WWII role than with our post WWII role. I think we would have been more than happy to let the powers of Europe continue to run things if they had not shown themsleves to be so completely incompetent at doing so. William De Prêtre wrote: But regarding the meddling in other countries the US have had their fair share of dirty deeds as well. The CIA has quite a track record in removing unsuitable regimes (all in the name of stopping the commies) and no matter how generous the US is the people will always will remember that (perhaps even better than all the benefit they get from the US). The US can pour billions in Kosovo (benefitting muslims) and all people will remember is their unrelenting support for Israel while that country happily oppresses the Palestinians (a picture of a dead child remains far longer than a little boy going to a school funded by the US). PS : Echelon & Carnivore don't really promote a nice picture of the US either. a) The "commies" needed to be stopped - they represented an evil as profound as anything that came out of Nazi Germany. We stopped them very effectively and for the first time in human history two great powers confronted each other and did not go to war thanks primarily to American wisdom and foresight (not to say we have not made gross mistakes along the way.) b) Israel is a perfect example of our predicument. Mindless terrorist murder Israelies, the Israelies respond, and we get blamed for it because we are committed to their defense. A situation created originally by a U.N. controlled primarily by European Intellectuals (an oxymoron, BTW). "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"

Chris Losinger

tstih wrote: Well, Bush is requesting $396.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2003. so? what's your point? don't worry about how we spend our money, ok? -c

Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse

Lost User

Vagif Abilov wrote: When USA joined the battles in Europe, it was obvious that Russia was winning on their side. It was after Stalingrad. Yeah, but if Britain falls and Germany can then concentrate on only one front...

Mike Mullikin "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz

Paul Watson

Chris Maunder wrote: they were realising that giving cash doesn't necessarily mean giving aid While I do agree, and I know you are not saying this, but the disrespectful position of countries towards America for the aid it does give is not excused by the fact that the aid is money, not doctors or engineers or educators. Also it is a bit of a strange position willing volunteers are in. A lot of African countries clamour for aid and when America or Europe suggest sending over doctors, engineers etc. the African countries either demand money instead (which everyone knows is not working) or tell the volunteers to take a hike. Why? Because most of the volunteers are white and as so many African leaders have said "we don't need no white man to help us anymore!" A friend of mine runs a non-profit clinic out in the townships here. Everyday he goes out and helps pregnant mothers, sick children etc. Virtually everyday he has to have a police escort to his clinic because the very people he is helping are trying to stone his car and destroy his clinic, because he is white and they fear that he has some "master plan" underneath his free help to enslave them all again. So what can the international community do? Send over only black doctors and engineers? That is a pretty sick way of having to look at it IMO. Anyway, my most desperate hope is that we African countries start helping ourselves instead of relying on the rest of the world. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront

Paul Watson

Stan Shannon wrote: Now, I have to take exception to that. Apparently when the rest of the world thinks of American culture they think of McDonalds and Hollywood. As an American I think of things like "constitutional rights" liberty and rugged individualism. *That* is the culture of America. And frankly, I think the world has benfited from it tremendously. The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. Ok, in my mind I seperated culture into two blocks. One is the everday attitude of the average American. His take on life, how he lives, what he believes etc. The other one, the one I really meant, is the arts, literature, poetry etc. IMO America, while having produced some great artists, poets and authors, has underachieved in that arena. For your size, for the posibilities that your economic nation has provided to it's citizens, you have not done much. Look at Britian. Small country, small population and compared to America not that well off. Yet the percentage of great artists, authors, poets etc. is staggering. I think that the culture you mentioned of rugged individualism and liberty has it's bad side. The side that makes Americans complacent, the side which lets an America sit on their collective asses throughout their lives, eating McDonalds and doing a 9 to 5. There seems to be more pop than art to American culture and that brings your children up as pop-stars, not artists. While that may be fine for Americans, it is not fine for me. I realise it is a perspective thing, a personal opinion thing, but it is still my attitude towards American culture. You and your fellow Americans may continue to think that what you have created culturally is a wonderful thing, a quality thing, and I will continue to think that it isn't, that Americans have underachieved culturally. And as I said before, this is a generalisation, I am sure there are many Americans with more quality culture under their left toenail than I have in my whole body. I reckon you have a lot of quality culture in you Stan, and correct me if I am wrong, but you don't seem the type to go in for pop-stars, movie idols and sports gods as being the pinnacles of Earths cultural heritage. Just thought of something. Spike Milligan died recently and he, culturally, is what I think of as quality. I cannot see America producing someone like him. I see America producing someone like Jim Carrey, whos is more pop-quality culture. regards, Paul Watson

jan larsen

Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: No single country in the world has the philanthropic attitude towards others like the American people. More money leaves this country through charities than anywhere else on earth, yet we do NOT ask for aid ourselves from beyond our own borders. While i agree that the actual sum coming from US is most probably the biggest, it is not that much compared to the number of people supporting that sum. Denmark is the one country that gives the largest amount of money compared to our population count, or that is what our prime minister says anyway. He also claims that even though our new budget is cutting deeply into the charities, it will STILL be at the top. Purple Warhead / outlaw programmer wrote: yet we do NOT ask for aid ourselves from beyond our own borders. So, Bush did NOT ask for help in his campaign against terror?, if you meant economical help i agree, but there are other resources that counts, e.g. good-will. Jan "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"

William De Pretre

Stan Shannon wrote: Just a couple of quick points. I would argue that rampant consumerism is a by-product of American culture not the culture itself. Secondly, although I am no fan of rampant consumerism, it does not represent one of the great evils of world history. If you do not wish to participant in it, than don't. No one is holding a gun to your head. Didn't I mention that ? I said it's too bad that America's most visible "culture" is m.m crap not that it is the only culture. Neither did I mention that it was forced upon me. Stan Shannon wrote: a) The "commies" needed to be stopped - they represented an evil as profound as anything that came out of Nazi Germany. We stopped them very effectively and for the first time in human history two great powers confronted each other and did not go to war thanks primarily to American wisdom and foresight (not to say we have not made gross mistakes along the way.) Or more likely because of the MAD doctrine. I didn't say America did not need to stop the commies but that the people affected by those gross mistakes remember them far better than the fact that the US defeated the commies (or did the commies defeat themselves ?) Stan Shannon wrote: b) Israel is a perfect example of our predicument. Mindless terrorist murder Israelies, the Israelies respond, and we get blamed for it because we are committed to their defense. A situation created originally by a U.N. controlled primarily by European Intellectuals (an oxymoron, BTW). No, because the US is unconditionally commited to their defense. Besides the US has veto powers in the UN so they should have used them. I will not say that the Palestians are innocents but public opinion favors the underdogs. They have no land, no rights, no high-tech army and yet Isreal cannot defeat them. When the news shows a Palistinian boy shot dead , do you really think public opinion will side with the Isreali who shot him ? Look at public opinion in the US during the Vietnam war. The cause can be just but if you get caught shooting women & children your cause doesn't mean anything anymore to public opinion.

jan larsen

Stan Shannon wrote: The very freedom of speech exercised in this lounge is an example of American culture. Do you claim Democracy and The Freedom of Speech to be of American origin?, now THAT is a pure sign of indoctrinism through tasteless nationalistic propaganda. While i very much agree in the success of democracy and free speech as a tool for making a better world, i am not that fond of the american implementation that has given birth to monsters like the last presidential election, and the freedom to speek and get sued for attacking some minority you didn't even know existed... Jan "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"