RE: US Foreign Policy

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: US Foreign Policy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: US Foreign Policy

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 7:21:54 AM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreoleCook

Teddy Roosevelt (I think) said, "Walk tall, and carry a big stick."

That was Vice-President Pusser.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to CreoleCook)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 8:47:12 AM

CreoleCook

Posts: 321
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

Point made, point well made.... Jesus people... get over the specifics of who said it, and at what stage of their political career they were at... its the point of the quote, that should be taken.

(And here I thought it was just about the conversation, not the exact fucking historical viewpoint.)

CC

(in reply to Level)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 1:05:43 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

Gent - lets look at that imaginary leap of the UK or more likely England becoming the 51st state of the US I don't think either side of the Atlantic would know what had hit them.
For the US - California becomes the second largest state by about 20 million within the Union and would look positively conservative in out look compared with the State of "Old England" with its comparatively" left of centre, socialist, wider world looking and appeasement / non confrontation based outlook.
For the UK / "Old England" the changes in thinking concerning welfare state, fairness, importance of money and requirement to accept one view point politics would be very interesting.

Of course it might meen that the UK actually did have some effect on US policy as opposed to just having a political leader that claimed it had some impact. But then again the horror of Blair El president of the US. aahhhhgggg

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 1:28:33 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Dtes,

I'm not convinced with your comparison for the following reasons.

Britain is not operating a left of centre government. National industries have been sold off to private bidders. Our health and education sectors are now open to private investment. We have never in our history had a socialist government (possibly with the exception of a short stint in 1931) and it is open to debate whether or not the British Government is less non confrontational than the US Government - maybe our Government isn't as brash and in your face as the US Government but the British Government has had it's fingers in a few pies in the last couple of decades.

Also, I've just put a link up on another thread which shows that the wealth divide in Britain and the US is similar - this should prove the point that we are no more socialist in outlook than the US.

I think if you compared us to one of the religious, conservative states then yes, point taken, big difference. But, are we different to say New York or Seattle?

As for Blair being the President of the US - I would be more than happy if he was the President of anywhere in the world except Britain!

Regards

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 2:14:39 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

The problem with the British left is that it hates the US and it equally hates Europe. If it chose Europe it could have a major influence in the direction of Europe and neutralise the right's love affair with America but it won't. Politics is about compromise and doing what is possible, the left refuses to accept this.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 4:17:22 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

MC,

Your paragraph is full of assumptions that are not backed up by reality:

1) The British left does not hate the US at all. The British left knows there is an American left and knows they have a similar society to us which is basically too many half-wits who view life based on material wealth. The British left actually believes we are not too dissimilar. The British left hates US foreign policy but then again the British left hates British foreign policy.

2) The British left does not hate Europe. The British left hates the fact that the EU is run by bankers in Frankfurt. It also hates the fact that the EU Commissioner is appointed rather than elected - add these two together and you have an undemocratic organisation. In principle, the British left believes in a united Europe based on the American congress system - however only when it is democratic and not in its current state.

3) The right doesn't have a love affair with the US - it is a popular misconception. Have you seen our media representation of the US? They paint them as a bunch of idiots and there's a good reason for this. If we are led to believe the people of the US are as idiotic as Bush and 100% behind him then it will give the impression that it is futile to resist Blair's policies because, regardless of what we do, Blair's policies will be put into practice by Bush around the world because he has the full support of the US people. In other words, it is aimed at fostering the notion that resistance to Blair's foreign policy is a waste of time.

That was a very lazy post by your standards MC.

Regards

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 6:36:19 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

I used the term comparatively. The overal cultural starting point between UK and US makes the UK comparatively more socialist than the US. e.g. the acceptance by most (debatable) Brits that the NHS (social medicine) is fundamentally correct, that unemplyment and social benefits are more than just survival levels (e.g. money not food stamps) that wealth is not the only measure of success, .
The concept of left and right in politics also seems pretty relative. I would estimate that the Labour Party generally is to the middle and left of the democratic party whilst the conservatives are towards the left of the republicans and probably in the democrats camp.
I accept that the coastal US areas tend to be more European / Global in persepctive than the Mid West but for example the area I live in is very democratic party but has more in comon with conservative values / aproach.

Where have you placed info on the wealh gap?
Do you consider Denmark and Sweeden more Socialist? I am familiar with these systems.

Ref Italy / Newcastle - the place on earth I recomend the most is Northern Italy......put it in your diary ....planner....life aims!!

US Foregin Policy gun fight at the OK coral but with bombers

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/2/2006 6:57:18 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

1) The British left does not hate the US at all. The British left knows there is an American left and knows they have a similar society to us which is basically too many half-wits who view life based on material wealth. The British left actually believes we are not too dissimilar. The British left hates US foreign policy but then again the British left hates British foreign policy.

Based on Tony Ben, Ken Livingston, I would agree with MC, based upon the Liberal Party left I would agree with Gent. Both positions are not representative of the bulk of the UK ppulation.

2) The British left does not hate Europe. The British left hates the fact that the EU is run by bankers in Frankfurt. It also hates the fact that the EU Commissioner is appointed rather than elected - add these two together and you have an undemocratic organisation. In principle, the British left believes in a united Europe based on the American congress system - however only when it is democratic and not in its current state.
Where is the evidence for this unless again it is based upon the Liberal party view point. It was the left wing of labour that was most against entry to the Common Market and until recently promoted weaker links with Europe. In recent time Kinnock & then Blair managed to silence them to provide a united front. Admitedly there are some in the Unions that look at Pan European Unions as being a way to promote workers rights but often within a local country protectionst outlook. Frankfurt bankers have rarely had a decisive input in policy until after the advent of the Euro. France not germany tended to call the tune.

3) The right doesn't have a love affair with the US - it is a popular misconception. Have you seen our media representation of the US? They paint them as a bunch of idiots and there's a good reason for this. If we are led to believe the people of the US are as idiotic as Bush and 100% behind him then it will give the impression that it is futile to resist Blair's policies because, regardless of what we do, Blair's policies will be put into practice by Bush around the world because he has the full support of the US people. In other words, it is aimed at fostering the notion that resistance to Blair's foreign policy is a waste of time.
Gent - I think you've leapt a bit far this time. On the whole the media may find many US positions incredulous but do not paint the US as a bunch of idiots, just the President and his team. Where there are failings with the British system comparisons on employment and social structure are often made with the US, particularly on Law and order, health care and education.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 4:08:31 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Dtes,

1) I refer you to a book written by the said person you mentioned - Tony Benn. "Free Radical - New Century Essays". Benn's views on Europe and the US are quite clearly stated to be in line with what I have posted. His views are absolutely not in line with MC as you claim.

2) The issue the left (this excludes the Liberal Party who in my opinion are not left-wing) has with the EU and Europe is an erosion of democracy and the transfer of power to business interests. There is no anti-European sentiment. Again, the British voice of socialism (Tony Benn) quite clearly states in this book that he and other socialists believe in the EU but not in it's current state as it is undemocratic (for example, appointing commissioners).

3) A fair enough viewpoint but can you explain why our media never reports the American left? - why is it always waving flags around at elections and glitz, why are we presented with the picture that Bush is a reflection of all Americans? We have documentaries on TV of all sorts of places around the world, particularly the Middle East - in an attempt to understand their culture but every documentary I have seen on the US has always been in some backwater, narrow minded town presenting a certain picture of Americans.

Regards

Regards

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 89

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 4:23:52 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Dtes,

The NHS is a difficult one to call and I take your point about debatable. Do Brits actually believe in the NHS? Health and education gains were made around the two world wars under political pressure and are now entrenched in our society - but does this mean that as a society we believe in social welfare? I'm not so sure and the proof is in the pudding and I am not seeing much opposition to privatising sections of health and education.

I take your point on the political landscape. But, again we are moving in that direction. For example, it is believed that at the next Labour Party leadership contest there will not be a candidate from the left allowed to stand. Thus, the next leader will be from the centre ground and basically a pseudo-conservative and he will be up against the real Conservatives and the Liberal Party who realistically are not at the races. So, we are also in a position where our two main parties are occupying the same ground.

The info on the wealth gap is in another post I think - can't remember which one but it was put up only yesterday from the London School of Economics. This is the big picture really - we may have differences when it comes to the small details but ultimately the big picture is we are the two nations with huge wealth divides in the industrialised world. In fact, while the US wealth gap remains static ours is increasing.

I know a little bit about Sweden which is operating what they call a third way. It appears to me to be simply capitalism with a reasonable distribution of wealth. By all accounts, certain things are working well in Sweden and the fact that they don't have the high crimes rate that we do tells a story of well-being in itself.

Northern Italy - maybe some day Dtes, it's a big old world though isn't it and I have a few other places to get through first - see a bit more of Eastern Europe for example.

Regards

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 90

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 4:28:13 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) I refer you to a book written by the said person you mentioned - Tony Benn. "Free Radical - New Century Essays". Benn's views on Europe and the US are quite clearly stated to be in line with what I have posted. His views are absolutely not in line with MC as you claim.

You should read your own posts on America. If they aren't pathalogically anti-American I don't know what is.

2) The issue the left (this excludes the Liberal Party who in my opinion are not left-wing) has with the EU and Europe is an erosion of democracy and the transfer of power to business interests. There is no anti-European sentiment. Again, the British voice of socialism (Tony Benn) quite clearly states in this book that he and other socialists believe in the EU but not in it's current state as it is undemocratic (for example, appointing commissioners).

This is misleading in the extreme. The commisioners have no power other than is granted to them by democratic leaders of European Union countries. It suits the democracies of the EU not to give commisioners independent democratically authorised power. You are simply mouthing anti-European propaganda here. I suggest you take a look at how the EU operates and take a tour of Europe and you will see your perception of the EU is a typically British anti-European view, propaganda hook, line and sinker.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 91

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 4:49:13 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

1) Bollocks. As you believe my views are patholgically anti-American then you will be able to give me one example of where I have posted something remotely anti-American on this board at any time. Just one example will do.

2) Bollocks. You are completely missing the point. The current plan for the development of the EU is effectively a federal superstate based on the German model which unites and controls states which are subject to the authority of the central government. Under this structure the British Parliament (and other member states) would become glorified regional assemblies. The real power would be in the hands of the Commission and commissioners. The problem with this is they are not elected and the president of the Commission has full power to appoint whoever he/she likes.

If you have read any of my posts it should be clear that I am not anti anyone (apart from anti British, US and other governments foreign policy and lack of social provision). I couldn't give a flying one if I am governed from Britain, from Europe, from Brazil or mars. The concern I have is not who governs me but what sort of govermment we have and I'm not about to support an organisation that appoints rather than elects commissioners. Providing we have a genuinely democratic government accountable to the people then that is good enough for me.

Regards

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 92

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 4:54:04 AM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

How much does anyone agree with Master Chess player Bobby Fischer on this issue?

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 93

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 5:06:04 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

2) Bollocks. You are completely missing the point. The current plan for the development of the EU is effectively a federal superstate based on the German model which unites and controls states which are subject to the authority of the central government. Under this structure the British Parliament (and other member states) would become glorified regional assemblies. The real power would be in the hands of the Commission and commissioners. The problem with this is they are not elected and the president of the Commission has full power to appoint whoever he/she likes.

There is no plan which has always been the fundemental problem for the EU, no one really knows where we are going with the project so how you can possibly say THE CURRENT PLAN, beggars belief. You ought to look more closely into the FRD's constitution and you will find that even Germany is not after an EU based on their constitutional model. In fact you will find that the German state Parliaments are more than glorified assemblies and give more direct national power to the people than Westminister does to the British.

To complain about the power of the commisioners when they have no power is laughable but to complain about what power they would have if a constitution was adopted based on your worse nightmares is beyond pantomine. If the EU was a unitary state and commisioners had power, there would be a democratic need for them to be elected which is precisely why no democratic leader is willing to give them democratic legitimacy. It is the same reason democratic leaders won't give the European Parliament more power because they do have at least a little democratic legitimacy.

Your whole stance to the EU is based on fear and you criticise everyone else for taking stands based on fear. Now who is talking bollocks?

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 94

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 5:11:32 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Ok, I'll see what links I can find for you.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 95

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 5:39:21 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

This link shows that the objection to an undemocratic EU is more than "British anti-European sentiment". Scroll down to the Hungarian perspective on the lack of democracy for the smaller states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3484571.stm

The below is the German view of EU development in 2001 based on the Federal system. You will see the resistance by other leaders to taking power away from nation states by transferring power to a central authority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1355610.stm

The below link clearly shows that pro-EU supporters have serious reservations about the democratic nature of proposed plans and the appointment of commissioners. Scroll down to 3.4.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/europe/051006threepointplan.shtml

All in all, there is much argument/discussion on the democratic nature of the EU across the whole of Europe and across political viewpoints. I think you'll find that once a genuinely democratic EU is proposed then the British left will be the first to accept it as it will be a marked improvement on British conservative politics.

Regards

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 96

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 7:47:35 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

None of these links are official proposals, they are perceptions and proposals by interested parties.

The problem for the EU is that those people who hold power ie. the democratically elected governments, don't want to ceed power to the EU and therefore THEY keep the EU bereft of democratic legitimacy. It is not that the EU is inherently undemocratic, it has no power to be undemocratic, it is the democratic powers of the EU that have the power and make the decisions in the EU.

Take the befuddled line of Jospin in your second link. He insists that the EU should not be a federation and states (particularly France) should not ceed power to the centre but then proposes an 'economic government' in direct contradiction, as though the state wouldn't have to ceed power to the centre to have this 'economic government'. This is the problem just about all European politicians have. They want to maintain independence of THEIR own country while wanting to control other EU countries. They get themselves in this nonsensical world because they know they need the aggregate power of the EU to negotiate in international trade agreements etc. The circle can't be squared. Just about every objection put forward about the EU being undemocratic is a red herring put forward by the self interest of politicians.

Let's take the rejection of the EU constitution. I think the constitution was crap because it made too many political compromises and slightly changed nuance from one language to another and really should have created a legal framework in which the EU could operate. France rejected it because the French realised they as a large country would lose too much power in the EU. The Dutch rejected it because small countries would have no say at all and would be swamped in the voting. All this goes to show that no one really wants a democratic EU, except people like me who see national boundaries within Europe as something fundementally against the interests of Europe as a whole.

What we have now is not a European federation in gestation but a confederation and that is how it will likely stay because there are not enough national politicians that can rise above the parochial and see the big picture.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 97

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 8:20:09 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

There are serious reservations from across the political spectrum (and across nations) as to the extent of the democratic nature of the EU. It is not a peculiarly British or left-wing view as you were suggesting. Pro-EU supporters are sceptical for various reasons - some mentioned above. As I said, I think you will find that the British left will jump at the chance of a democratic EU ran for all the people because it will be a marked improvement of British conservatism. You are certainly right in saying there is much self-interest at play which makes it all the more a reasonable position to take that criticism of the EU in its current form is not anti-European sentiment (which quite frankly is a strange comment to make and indicates you believe I don't have the ability to rise above nationalism). As the people at the driving force of the EU are the ones espousing self-interest then it's hard to see the EU as anything more than undemocratic - the smaller European states certainly have grievances about the major players holding too much authority.

You are missing one absolutely vital point about the EU as follows:

a) The European Commission is not elected and the European Parliament does not have a mandate to take any particular course of action. The European Parliament is the only directed authority in the EU and it takes up a watchdog role.

b) The European Commission has the authority to initiate legislation.

Why would you want to be governed by an unelected body with powers to initiate legislation?

The below is a good link about the institutions of the EU and outlines the concerns over a lack of democratic accountability. Note the paragraph
This is the European Union’s most powerful decision-making body. It is made up of the foreign ministers of member states. Other ministers from member states may have an input in topics relevant to their expertise.
The policies discussed and eventually decided on by the Council are largely developed by non-elected civil servants in member states and by the non-elected Commission. This has lead to many complaints about how this system works in that 320 million people have decisions taken for them by elected ministers but these ministers discuss policies created by non-elected civil servants.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/institutions_of_the_european_uni.htm

Regards

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 98

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 8:21:42 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

The problem with democracy is people expect to get whatever it is they vote for, forgetting that they are neither the center of the world, nor is their opinion that important.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 99

RE: US Foreign Policy - 9/3/2006 8:45:31 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You are missing one absolutely vital point about the EU as follows:

a) The European Commission is not elected and the European Parliament does not have a mandate to take any particular course of action. The European Parliament is the only directed authority in the EU and it takes up a watchdog role.

YOU ARE MISSING THE VITAL POINT!!!! Why aren't commisioners elected?????? Because DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments REFUSE to allow them to be elected. While they are not elected they are the tools of democratically elected governments, if they had democratic legitimacy they would cease to be appointed officials and would become politicians who could wield power. As the commisioners are now, they are a convenience for politicians to blame for the decisions made by the politicians who are balming them. If you don't understand this then you don't undertand how the EU works. The commisioners ONLY HAVE POWER BY PROXY!!!!!

b) The European Commission has the authority to initiate legislation.

They can have the power to initiate the second coming but they haven't got the power to make it happen. The elected leaders of the EU countries are the only ones that have power. Again, the commisioners are stooges that are convenient to blame for decisions EU leaders have made and their electrate don't like.

Why would you want to be governed by an unelected body with powers to initiate legislation?

I DON"T BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROPOSED. Commisioners want democratic legitimacy because then they will be a proper government with power and not the fall guys for inept and hypocritical politicians. I would like to see a European Parliament with real power. Being British I am signally unimpressed with British Parliamentary democracy, it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

The below is a good link about the institutions of the EU and outlines the concerns over a lack of democratic accountability. Note the paragraph
This is the European Union’s most powerful decision-making body. It is made up of the foreign ministers of member states. Other ministers from member states may have an input in topics relevant to their expertise.
The policies discussed and eventually decided on by the Council are largely developed by non-elected civil servants in member states and by the non-elected Commission. This has lead to many complaints about how this system works in that 320 million people have decisions taken for them by elected ministers but these ministers discuss policies created by non-elected civil servants.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/institutions_of_the_european_uni.htm

The Commission is not powerful. It only has the power that democratically elected governments allow them to have and which can be removed at any time. If the Commission had real power it wouldn't be able to be removed with the flick of a pen. Democratically elected politicians are in control and I'll say it once again. The Commission is a convenience to be blamed by the politicians who make the decisions. The most rudimentary analysis of how the EU is run will confirm this.

How the EU is run, might be lamentable but who decided how it will be run? DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED POLITICIANS.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/3/2006 8:47:10 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 100