I say NO! America has no right to give other countrys large sums of money so that they can have influence in that country. America is in a sever recession, Americans need jobs, not money being sent to other countries. NO! America you are not the king of the world, not even close, Get your act together and treat your on people right before you dictate to other countries on how they should treat there people.
_____________________________
edward emmell
RE: Does America have the right to rule the world, - 9/22/2009 11:34:04 PM
I am distressed when it seems that a disagreement here seems to bring out personal attacks. If we wonder why peace does not come easily to the topics we discuss, we should not look to far. Peace requires either extreme fear and repression or respect. The ephitets directed on this forum are sufficient to elicit disgust, but not fear. They also signal a lack of respect.
I think that the only way to bring a child to maturity is to grant him more respect than he deserves, counting on him gradually to rise to that respect and the expectations that come with it.
If we attack people who posit groundless, senseless, positions, the only way to destroy those positions and leave ground for convincing, for maturing is this; 1) parse the positions into single pieces that leave little room for broad exogenous factors to play in 2) respect those positions by asking for the evidence and rational {not opinion} that supports them, 3) do not demand acknowledgment of the superiority of our own position but allow epiphany sufficient space to work it's magic.
We should also allow a new forum where people can voluntarily go to rip off each others heads - maybe they will be better prepared to offer the civility so neccesary for peace to blossom.
I am not sure the question is either useful or relevant - this is a Forum on Iraq, and if US efforts at world domination were the goal they have proven fruitless.
Feasible? Nearly twenty years and two wars to conquer a single Nation that is yet unconquered? World domination is not feasible via military conquest. By anyone, except Martians with giant death rays. Or maybe the Knights Templar returning on incredibly fast cavalry mounts.
To what end? - egomania? Perhaps. Bush{2} though started out as an isolationist but found himself an accidental interventionist engaged beyond his ability. Natural resources? The oil industry benefited for 8 years under Bush{2} not by providing a source of natural resources for US consumption, but by driving prices up through removal of Iraq's oil from world markets. Military conquest consumes natural resources, it does not provide them. Hitler's cause in WWII was first to destroy the jews, then to capture enough resources to sustain the German peoples as rulers for a 1000 years. Oh wait, that did not work out well for him. Security? Well that one is not working out well, but if you ask US citizens whether they support the war to end up being realy cool and benevolent rulers, or they support it for the wonderful stability and low prices for gasoline, or because they see an unanswered threat of attack, I think the latter rises to the top.
How exactly is the US taking over the world, and to what end? I'm not convinced yet.
All three of your possible reasons are right on the spot.
Egomania you say?
Americans were convinced that whatever their endeavor is, it seems to be blessed by god since the moment the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. Therefore they set out on a mission of conquering whatever stands between them and expanding their horizon starting with the Native American redskins.
Natural resources huh?
With expansion, comes the need for resources to support their way of life, no need to get into that now, and their other mission in life “capitalism and monopoly”.
Security?
Although America is doing so poorly in the security sector, nevertheless, that is an essential ingredient in the making of a powerful nation “blessed by God”. The main reason why the security is not working for the Americans is their arrogance in passionately believing the first point, and ignoring the consequences of the second.
You are correct however about this being an Iraqi site; however, it was America that sparked the issue and the invasion war against Iraq. The U.S. as of today owns over 700 military bases in 103 countries around the globe, including Germany, Japan, Turkey, Greece, Australia, Romania, and last but not least, Camp Anaconda in Iraq.
ORIGINAL: Londoner2k9 Well, America doesn't have any influence on Israel. It could be the other way round, Israel influences America.
Just as America needs Turkey, it also needs Israel, which is why Americas influence on Israel is limited to protecting the American interests in the region. Other than that, Israel has all kinds of immunity, when it comes to oppressing, relocating, killing, and committing other inhumane acts against Palestinians, even at the U.N.
_____________________________
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
Unfortunately, we set the standard with the Marshall plan. And we have not been able to be that successful in firing up an economy since. Even the peace corp, as successful as it has been was not able to overcome local inertia in the form of culture, graft, and foreign competition.
And as I said once previous, I see in every US President since Wilson a decided slant toward isolationism. Obama would be an isolationist except for the war he inheirited {I did not vote for him}. Just like the harpies at the global climate sumit, everyone has good ideas, wants influence, but finds the couch i he back of the room a more comfortable place to sit.
Regarding natural resources, it is only when they are scarce that they become valuable. Bush did not invade Iraq to produce mmore oil for the market and drive down world prices. The evidence is pretty much the opposite.
Under both egomania and natural resources, the charges are typically based on individual behaviour - one of the definitions of civil society is not that greed and ego are absent, but that civil means exist to constrain and punish the excesses.
Regarding security, what do you suggest? We have kept the bulk of conflict off of our ground, unfortunately at the expense of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I am not sure the world wants us to turn our our back on Iran and North Korea and their nuclear developments but who else is there and how do we project influence by standing down?
From this shore the problem always appears to have a common element - the lack of local leadership with sufficient moral authority to lead. We would like to assist and stand in the background- but that would be followed by the giant sucking sound as all sense of reason and leadership headed for the ATMs of their Swiss banks.
I have thought about getting together with the Russians and Chinese and divvying up the worlds hot spots among the three -oh wait, thats just another form of hegemony. Daang, can't win - can't let things go along as tye are and can't do anything to prevent disaster.
This mmay sound arrogant and accusatory - I hope it is not because I am not angry, I am still hopeful. Even if the aide programs had worked effectively, I don't think the security system would be any different. Success seems to come at a price - and it's measured in US dollars. Phooey with that.
I sit here on the sidelines and see much of what I've seen in American history. Corrupt leaders who sometimes accidentaly make the right choices. People who if they are not fighting international wars are fighting regional ones, and in between generating so much domestic fighting that there is no appearance of peace. All of these institutions seem glawed, family, religion, state, but they are better than any of the other alternaives.
So I conclude that God does not bless nations - he can't; they are not worthy. He blesses individuals.
It should be obvious to anyone that America does not give millions of dollars to other countries because it has a big heart or that America helps other countries because it wants to be nice. America is in Iraq for money purposes and wants to spread its ideology. If Iraq did not have oil we would not be there. Sadam was a cruel ruthless dictator, but he had to be cruel to deal with the muslims. They butcher and kill each other because one does not beleive the way the other does and they oppress woman to make the men feel superior. We are not going to change these stone age people. America should not had went there and America needs to work on raising the standard of living in America for all Americans. America is in Iraq because of greed. There are many horrible things going on in many countries, you won't see America going to these countries unless there in something to be gained for rich greedy American companies
ORIGINAL: emmellw We are not going to change these stone age people.
The only stone-age people are the ones that illegally invade countries and nations leading to mass murders, war crimes, and genocide. Can you think of any recent examples of such countries? I can certainly name you one.
Yeah, people in Haiti don't need the money... The poor people in America live in much worst conditions than those in third world countries. What's the latest topic in current US news?! Something about 'social justice', since our poster here is so about religion!
It doesn't hurt that the US, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, dish out money for humanitarian reasons.
If you wanna argue about 'wasted money', then you should look at our budget and rethink your position.
I think the the culprits that brought to fruition the reasoning for this forum post are most likely a variety of groups of people who capitalize on resources and becoming wealthy after staking a claim in those resources, oil industries for instance. While not all of these resource profiteers are originating their work from America, a good amount of the large ones do. And it would seem that its the large ones basing themselves out of America are the people who abide by no laws but their own personal gain, with America as a scapegoat.
If you honestly think the American people wanted to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, please re-think the fact that a scarily high percentage of US Citizens cannot find Iraq on a map.
Dont get me wrong, most US citizens are actually good God fearing people who actually are quite intelligent. .
Main Page
Log In
Register
Help/FAQ
Ticket List
Printable Version
Does America have the right to rule the world, - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread