|
Zonie63 -> RE: US supporting freedom and democracy? US against terrorism? (1/1/2013 6:31:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ermood
quote:
If those were the goals of the U.S. government in our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I would agree that they have failed in achieving those goals. As far as restoring peace to that region, other nations have tried and failed as well. It's a volatile region, seemingly in a state of perpetual war and struggle.
True the US isn't the only one that failed to achieve peace in the region, but before the US came there it was more peacefull then it is today.
That's debatable. There have been rivalries, blood feuds, and religious conflicts dominating that region for millennia, long before the U.S. even existed. I'm not saying that the U.S. is making things any better, but I wouldn't agree that it was more peaceful before the U.S. got involved in the region.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ermood
True, but for example we from the Netherlands know almost every countrie, so for us is the "outside world" one of these countries, and no its not easy to know every countrie and its relation towards the US, its changing a lot and quick to.
But i noticed when i was on vacation in the US that lots of people hated Muslims, purely for the fact that Muslims where there enemy's.
I think that may be an oversimplification. Some Americans may be like that, but not all of them.
quote:
Its the same as in 1980 only then it was Communism...
Perhaps, although Christians and Muslims have been at odds with each other for over a millennium.
It's interesting that you mention 1980, since that entire year was dominated by the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Iran, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pretty much wrecked Carter's presidency and handed the election to Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure why the Iranians preferred Reagan over Carter, but they got their wish. It could have been that, since Reagan was a staunch anti-communist, he would have aided the Afghan rebels in their fight against the Soviets and he viewed the Soviet Union as the most dangerous enemy, while relegating the Muslims to more of a secondary threat. The Iranians were supporting the Afghan rebels as well, so if Reagan was willing to supply them with weapons in the name of anti-communism, then that may be a reason for them to support Reagan. They probably thought they could negotiate an arms-for-hostages deal at some point later on.
So, they were willing to make deals with the U.S. if they thought it could help other Muslims, and we were willing to make deals with them in the name of anti-communism.
quote:
The US often creates enemy's, but now pretending that Muslims are there enemy's isn't complete correct... SA, Qatar and Yemen for example are US allies, but still if someone from that countrie would visit the US they probably would be hated by a lot of people.
We've got the very same here in the Netherlands a few years ago, We have a serious issue with the Moroccan community over here, and sudenly all people that looked the same as Moroccans where kind of hated... then we got Geert Wilders, who also tried to blame the Islam for that.
Now we know better again, and its time that the US people also going to start think on their own and see what their countrie is up to.
I think every country has to examine itself in its own way. The U.S. and its people have had to come to terms with a lot of the issues mentioned in this thread. Every single thing brought up as a criticism against the U.S. is something that other Americans have already criticized us for. Overall, Americans are rather prone to self-criticism, so I think we're capable of looking at ourselves honestly and objectively.
Despite anything else one might say about America, we are an open society and can freely discuss these issues and get it all out in the open, just as we're doing here.
quote:
quote:
I don't think America's fall will necessarily be permanent, though. Perhaps in 50-100 years,
I don't think the US will be back that soon, but no it will not be permanent. I'm thinking more like a 100/200 years (but its always a gamble)
All countries rise and fall, its simple as that.
What i find very intresting when looking at time plates, is that when the east becomes rich, the west becomes poor. And when the west becomes rich, the east becomes poor...
Wonder if this would be such change.
I'm not sure if it's so much a matter of rich and poor when discussing nations. A lot of people seem to be focusing on China as becoming the superpower while America is in decline, but it really depends on what form America's impending fall might take. We still have a large population and a large territory, with ample arable farmland and resource base to ensure our survival. We still have the tools and technologies we need to keep going strong.
To be sure, we've mismanaged ourselves and allowed too much outsourcing, which has been a major boon to nations like China which have benefited immensely, while America has been in decline. But we're not a helpless nation; we can still come out of this. That's not really the problem that I see, or at least, that doesn't seem to be the reason why we're in decline or possibly on the verge of falling.
quote:
quote:
I think that the U.S. feared communism, yes. But there was also some fear of Russia itself, the largest country on Earth, with a large population and resource base.
As to why the U.S. feared communism, clearly U.S. capitalists would have cause to fear and oppose communism. The working classes probably feared communism more out of religious sentiment, especially in earlier eras of U.S. history. Working people might have gone along with the economic ideals of communism, but not the social, cultural, and religious positions held by communists. That's where they faced some strong resistance. It just didn't play well in Peoria, as the saying goes.
As far as ideologies go, I suppose one can argue the positives and negatives of communism, keeping in mind that communism can come in many different brands. In its purest form, perhaps on a purely abstract theoretical plane, it seems okay, but then, so would many other ideologies, including capitalism.
I totaly agree. When you talk about the purest form of communism i would concider it as the original plan of Marx and Engels, wich i see as one of the best ideologies that there are.
One of the main problems with any ideology in its purest form is that if often doesn't account for the human propensity towards selfishness, greed, and corruption.
What always struck me was how Christians and communists always considered each other their worst enemy, yet when taken in their purest forms, both Christianity and communism share so much in common. In order for a communist system to work, people would have to love their neighbors and live by the Golden Rule, among other things. (Not that that's very prevalent even in Christian societies, although there are a few who make an honest go of it.)
quote:
I don't think that Russia would have attacked, even when the US would have no troops or nukes anywhere.
If you look closely to Russia you'll soon notice that they aren't succesfull in attacking and defeating other countries, Russia's tactic is the same as it was a 200 years ago. when attacked they retreat until a oppertunity arises to attack and defeat the enemy, then they march towards the enemy's country. That whas the same way as they defeated Napoleon Bonaparte as Adolf Hitler.
Especially with the problems that the SU where facing in their own countries at that time i really don't think they would have attacked.
The US wouldn't attack simply becouse attacking Russia is like taking on a bear with bare hands. So the US (even when they would win such war) wouldn't spill so much lives in such devastating war.
I don't think that it was entirely unfounded to believe that the Russians might attack Western Europe or other U.S. allies in the world. They did have the largest standing army in Europe at the end of World War II, and they continually outnumbered U.S. forces in that region all during the Cold War. Also, unlike World War I when they had inferior equipment and poor supplies, they were far better supplied and had modern equipment. They certainly had the resources, tools, technology, and manpower to attack us, if they wanted to.
The U.S. position was not really geared towards attacking Russia either. We agreed on the occupation zones and acceded to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, Manchuria, and North Korea (although the Soviets agreed to hold free elections, which turned out to be a farce). Once China fell under communist rule, we pretty much wrote them off. That is, we wouldn't attack any territory which was already communist, but our policy was to contain any further communist expansion. We had no interest in attacking Russia itself - or China, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
