|
ermood -> RE: US supporting freedom and democracy? US against terrorism? (12/29/2012 6:57:48 PM)
|
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.
quote:
I see what you're saying, although I would take exception with painting the outside world with a single brush regarding their attitudes towards America. While every country might have a certain relationship with America and an opinion about such, it seems to be rather different depending on which country or region we're talking about. So, the message the "outside world" might be sending us may be quite different, depending on whether it's coming from the Netherlands, the UK, Russia, China, Vietnam, Iran, Mexico - or anywhere else in the world.
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.
Its the same as in 1980 only then it was Communism...
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.
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.
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.
quote:
I think that even before the Communist Revolution in 1917, the relationship between Russia and the U.S. was starting to deteriorate. Neither country had much cause to fear each other, though. We knew that Russia was tied up with other things along their own borders and their own area of the world, while Russia knew that, given the world situation at the time, the U.S. was really the least of their worries.
I remember the big fear during the Cold War was that the Russians vastly outnumbered us in Europe and could have easily poured over the border and taken over Western Europe rather quickly. It was believed that the only way to prevent that would be a nuclear deterrent. But would the Russians have done that? If the U.S. had not kept troops and nukes in Europe, would the Russians have seen that as an opportunity to invade all of Europe? U.S. policymakers were convinced that that's what the Russians would do if we let our guard down, and that's what compelled our government to do many of the things it did.
Maybe both sides were a bit overly cautious and rather paranoid about each other, each thinking that the other was going to attack at a moment's notice.
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.
|
|
|
|
