That's what it's all about :(

Murdock said:
I second this. Its exactly what the founding fathers said, " Do business with everyone. Sign treaties with none." Exactly the opposite has happened since WW2.
Click to expand...

Exactly. America got too big for its britches too fast. Now its in over its head with half the world against it. I don't think were in danger of losing superpower status anytime soon, but we do have the odds against us in terms of influence and helping the rest of the world. World war II is just an extension of ww1. It was the first conflict where more then two countries were against more than two countries. It alienated as well as unified. This is why America has stepped in in a lot of world conflicts today. We are still running on the momentum of WW2, and we see it as our job as democratic leaders to keep the righteous right and the wrong out of control. But the problems rise when people start talking about ulterior motives and who exactly is the "righteous"? Now this is partly a distorted media but partly the ego of washington. Who are we to be saviors? One should save the self before aiding another. This is true for countries as well. We should mind our business until their business becomes OUR business. Then we can think about restructuring the "company".

America was founded on freedom, we fought our way through imperialism right into innovation and the industrial revolution. Why can't other countries follow suit? Why do we always need to step in? Its not appreciated years down teh line anyway. Hopefully America will learn its lesson after this whole Muslim revolution and economic crisis calms down a bit. Its time for some serious introspection.
 
CHamburger said:
America was founded on freedom, we fought our way through imperialism right into innovation and the industrial revolution. Why can't other countries follow suit? Why do we always need to step in? Its not appreciated years down teh line anyway. Hopefully America will learn its lesson after this whole Muslim revolution and economic crisis calms down a bit. Its time for some serious introspection.
Click to expand...
Anyone that's been around animals for very long will tell you no one teaches dogs to act like dog or rabbits to act like rabbits, so I'm a very strong believer that nature carries a great deal more weight than nurture.
By that approach, America was genetically colonized by a century of people insane enough to leave their nation (remember, most stayed behind and just endured) and hack out a new life in the wild.

Aggressive founders --> America.
Durable tolerants --> remain in homelands.

Genetically our thought processes forming governmental ideology is... concentrated or specialized into a rather narrow approach to our collective interaction with other nations.

Why can't other nations follow suit? Either we're proactive or we're sissy crybabies that demand what we want. Either they're passive or tolerant of a broader scope of living conditions.
I think the short term benefits are better from the American approach.
I think the long term benefits are better from the "old world" approach.

I don't think we can out-learn our aggressive predisposition.
We still demand too much from both ourselves and others, like children wanting to eat cake and ice cream and stay up at night until they fall over from exhaustion.
We prudently exploit opportunities to make our lives more gluttonous.
We do not prudently exploit opportunities to make our known resources last past three or four generations.
 
No I disagree, its no different then other immigrants coming to America. They leave with sanity intact. You are right about the aggressive predisposition but I think it can be undone. Its only policy now because it needs to be. After WW2 we established ourselves as world leaders in the fight against any sort of evil that would hold fellow man down. I honestly think America is helping fight Gaddafi in Libya for the same purpose of fighting Germans in WW2. You say to make our lives more gluttonous but I say no. If that was the case I think more troops would be present in other countries, and more dictators would "fall". We could easily get into North Korea and fuck things up there and implement a new gov, same with Iran. But we don't be like I said I think its actually about the people this time. I think America's gotten a lot "greener" since 2003 with more cars sporting more MPGs, and more alternative to gas powered automobiles. I think America is on its way to be less dependent on oil. Once this happens, I'd like to see what the world says when the next conflict in an oil rich country pops up.

American's did learn to be the way they are from the British Empire. They were aggressive and as such passed it on to American's who wanted a different life. Even after the American Rev. Great Britain still continued to impose its leadership on weaker nations, India and Egypt are perfect examples. But America wasn't apart of world affairs for almost 150 years after its independence. I don't think they took too much from the aggression that was passed on. I like your rabbit bit but rabbits are born with their role of rabbit innate, however humans learn, we communicate on a larger scale, and we think with the future in mind. Our nature is different then a rabbit's nature, they need to have their identity installed, while humans learn theirs.

The American Rev wasn't initially started with the idea of becoming an independent nation. That was only the result of a stubborn King in Britain who wasn't listening to the colonials. When they saw that their civil disobedience wasn't opening the kings eyes, they decided to fight for something greater, complete and total freedom. He was taxing everything and that's what caused this whole thing. One could say that America taxes but living in a country is like paying rent, it is the duty of the individual to pay his dues for the good of the group.

I agree with what you say Ray about the other nations following suit. America needs to leave these people to their own desires and devices. If they want freedom they can fight for it, because we can't keep handing it out. But before they can America needs to dissociate itself from anyone it doesn't do actual money business with.
 
CHamburger said:
Exactly. America got too big for its britches too fast. Now its in over its head with half the world against it. I don't think were in danger of losing superpower status anytime soon, but we do have the odds against us in terms of influence and helping the rest of the world.

America was founded on freedom, we fought our way through imperialism right into innovation and the industrial revolution. Why can't other countries follow suit? Why do we always need to step in? Its not appreciated years down teh line anyway. Hopefully America will learn its lesson after this whole Muslim revolution and economic crisis calms down a bit. Its time for some serious introspection.
Click to expand...

I was in Jordan recently looking at the aftermath of US decision-making. It is the same as British decision-making in the former colonies - absolutely catastrophic for the locals. I know what the intentions were and can understand why decisions were taken but the execution has absolutely destroyed the savings and earnings of the average Joe.

The issue is the way the US introduced money into the country caused massive inflation for the locals who subsequently suffered severe economic hardship. A two-bedroomed appartment in Jordan in a good area of Amman now costs $750,000 USD. This is in a country where the average salary is under $2,000 USD per year. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita - inflation has been terrifying for the average working Joe there and I was personally there on the 29th July when the riots kicked off.

The locals know the inflation was directly caused by the US and their first priority is being able to eat, not freedom. If you want to understand the issue, you can ask me how the US caused this and I would be happy to discuss but the issue was not the 'policy' rather the way it was executed on the ground.

Hell, imagine this the other way around. Imagine, say, a guy who was not an American turned up in the USA with enough power to screw up the economy, mess up business and antagonise half the country for some, strange adherence to a vision he has that you do not care about. Oh and he pushes your country into throwing more resources and men into a costly war. You wouldn't like that would you? * Note 1

* Note 1 - I'm not talking about Obama... ;)
 
I have to say I supported the protection of the city of Benghazi from annihilation at the hands of Gaddafi. I can also say I'm happy to see the Libyan freedom fighters triumphant.

Of course one should always be suspicious of the motives behind military intervention, particularly of any western nation into the affairs of middle eastern countries.

But I do tend to be less than enthusiastic when someone says an historically and socially complex situation is ALL about one particular thing or another.

I also know it took enormous pressure to get the Obama administration to agree to act (along with NATO) in Libya, and then ONLY when time had all but run out. That's not exactly the profile of a nation (or government) bound and determined to protect its vital economic "interests" exclusively.

There are more currents, deep currents, at play here than just "black gold." The West had a stable oil partner in Gaddafi, a partner more than willing to provide a steady flow at a reasonable price. There was no reason to upset the apple cart for oil.

I'm not sanguine about the difficulties that the Libyan people face. But I am grateful that they have never had a greater opportunity to make a just and democratic nation than they do now. I wish them godspeed.
 
gorillaonabike said:
I was in Jordan recently looking at the aftermath of US decision-making. It is the same as British decision-making in the former colonies - absolutely catastrophic for the locals. I know what the intentions were and can understand why decisions were taken but the execution has absolutely destroyed the savings and earnings of the average Joe.

The issue is the way the US introduced money into the country caused massive inflation for the locals who subsequently suffered severe economic hardship. A two-bedroomed appartment in Jordan in a good area of Amman now costs $750,000 USD. This is in a country where the average salary is under $2,000 USD per year. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita - inflation has been terrifying for the average working Joe there and I was personally there on the 29th July when the riots kicked off.

The locals know the inflation was directly caused by the US and their first priority is being able to eat, not freedom. If you want to understand the issue, you can ask me how the US caused this and I would be happy to discuss but the issue was not the 'policy' rather the way it was executed on the ground.

Hell, imagine this the other way around. Imagine, say, a guy who was not an American turned up in the USA with enough power to screw up the economy, mess up business and antagonise half the country for some, strange adherence to a vision he has that you do not care about. Oh and he pushes your country into throwing more resources and men into a costly war. You wouldn't like that would you? * Note 1

* Note 1 - I'm not talking about Obama... ;)
Click to expand...

But this is my point. America steps in, kinda fucks shit up with good intentions and they create an enemy. People see us stepping in as some NWO agenda where we wanna control the world's oil. If that was the case, we'd just do it. We've beaten weaker countries before, why stop now? My point is because it's not on the agenda.

Antagonist's causing us to go to war? Thats already happened in America, a couple of times, Vietnam, Korea, and Gulf War. Serbia and Kosovo to name two more.

Also, the reason for Jordan inflation goes back to 2007 when oil prices were skyrocketing. They don't export oil, they're importers of oils, as they don't have their own supply to market. They also don't have too many exports to bring up a solid GDP. That combined with the Islamic Revolution seemingly occurring around it, on it, in it. "Meanwhile, a housing shortage, particularly at the lower-end of the price scale, has driven rents up." Their inflation rates were bound to soar. America also didn't really have too much intervening in Jordan. King what's his name did a pretty good job of quelling any real tumult.

If America minded its business and left the rest of the world to fend for itself we'd be in a much better state of play. We're like the mother who won't let go.
 
Adeimantus said:
I also know it took enormous pressure to get the Obama administration to agree to act (along with NATO) in Libya, and then ONLY when time had all but run out. That's not exactly the profile of a nation (or government) bound and determined to protect its vital economic "interests" exclusively.

There are more currents, deep currents, at play here than just "black gold." The West had a stable oil partner in Gaddafi, a partner more than willing to provide a steady flow at a reasonable price. There was no reason to upset the apple cart for oil.
Click to expand...

Perfect defense of the current US position. We were allies with Gaddafi for years, then the Islamic Revolution occurred in Egypt calling for democracy,l then it spread. America didn't even want to get involved like Mantus said. Protecting their interest would've been signaled by a quicker response and harsher tactics. Gaddafi is just a guy who doesn't wanna give up power when his people are calling for free elections. America new the reaction wouldn't be favorable as it hasn't been in the past, but they did it any way. That's what it is to be a power in the international arena, doping things that aren't publicly well-received but necessary for the greater good. Should they step in next time? fuck no, like a man quarreling with a girlfriend, wait for the b#tch to call lol
 
CHamburger said:
But this is my point. America steps in, kinda fucks shit up with good intentions and they create an enemy. People see us stepping in as some NWO agenda where we wanna control the world's oil. If that was the case, we'd just do it. We've beaten weaker countries before, why stop now? My point is because it's not on the agenda.

Antagonist's causing us to go to war? Thats already happened in America, a couple of times, Vietnam, Korea, and Gulf War. Serbia and Kosovo to name two more.

Also, the reason for Jordan inflation goes back to 2007 when oil prices were skyrocketing. They don't export oil, they're importers of oils, as they don't have their own supply to market. They also don't have too many exports to bring up a solid GDP. That combined with the Islamic Revolution seemingly occurring around it, on it, in it. "Meanwhile, a housing shortage, particularly at the lower-end of the price scale, has driven rents up." Their inflation rates were bound to soar. America also didn't really have too much intervening in Jordan. King what's his name did a pretty good job of quelling any real tumult.

If America minded its business and left the rest of the world to fend for itself we'd be in a much better state of play. We're like the mother who won't let go.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. There is one point, though and that is the issue about inflation. Increasing the price of oil certainly did not help but was not the reason for property inflation. If you talk to guys on the ground you will discover that a load of Iraqi ex-military turned up in Jordan just before Iraq was re-invaded with loads of US dollars. The presumption is the US govt paid them to desert en masse and flew them all into Jordan.

They bought out properties on a huge scale in Amman but if you leave Amman and go literally 20 minutes from the 8th circle, you will find really cheap properties.

For a local, earning under $2,000 USD per year (this is the average salary), all they saw were lots of Iraqis showing up with loads of American cash, buying up the place and then leaving to go somewhere else. This pushed the prices up overnight so the locals had difficulty even just buying food to eat. They were not happy.

And this was not helped because the only Americans I met were in the Four Seasons or other hotels. They did not speak the local languages, refused to dine in the local restaurants or mix. I was at parties in a number of locations and there were the usual French 'from the embassy,' and other nationalities mixed in with the local Jordanian hosts. However, the Americans stayed bunkered up in the hotels and were scared to eat the local food or drink the local water. I wanted to shake them and tell them to spread some money around - make some friends - you'll do a lot for your country by sharing a little of the wealth and connecting with the locals.

Sure, the US wins a war in Iraq but fosters resentment in the population of another country. I don't blame the military for paying off the Iraqi generals but the execution caused issue - in this case, annoying the h@ll out of the population of a relatively neutral country.
 
gorillaonabike said:
I agree with you. There is one point, though and that is the issue about inflation. Increasing the price of oil certainly did not help but was not the reason for property inflation. If you talk to guys on the ground you will discover that a load of Iraqi ex-military turned up in Jordan just before Iraq was re-invaded with loads of US dollars. The presumption is the US govt paid them to desert en masse and flew them all into Jordan.

They bought out properties on a huge scale in Amman but if you leave Amman and go literally 20 minutes from the 8th circle, you will find really cheap properties.

For a local, earning under $2,000 USD per year (this is the average salary), all they saw were lots of Iraqis showing up with loads of American cash, buying up the place and then leaving to go somewhere else. This pushed the prices up overnight so the locals had difficulty even just buying food to eat. They were not happy.

And this was not helped because the only Americans I met were in the Four Seasons or other hotels. They did not speak the local languages, refused to dine in the local restaurants or mix. I was at parties in a number of locations and there were the usual French 'from the embassy,' and other nationalities mixed in with the local Jordanian hosts. However, the Americans stayed bunkered up in the hotels and were scared to eat the local food or drink the local water. I wanted to shake them and tell them to spread some money around - make some friends - you'll do a lot for your country by sharing a little of the wealth and connecting with the locals.

Sure, the US wins a war in Iraq but fosters resentment in the population of another country. I don't blame the military for paying off the Iraqi generals but the execution caused issue - in this case, annoying the h@ll out of the population of a relatively neutral country.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but to be fair Jordan was never the strongest econ. America needs to leave the mid east alone until it completely dries up both figuratively and literally. Those Americans in teh 4 seasons are the stereotype that gives the rest of the country a bad name. They see us how the tourists you noticed acted. They take and take and don't give anything back, but this presumed American disposition is changing throughout teh country. As more world problems start to affect teh everyday lives of more and more Americans, we begin to take more notice of what's actually happening. The people that can change teh opinions of teh world towards America are stuck dealing with their own monetary problems. the wealth gap is broadening as teh poor get poorer and teh rich stay rich. Until we begin to focus on more than Kim Kardashian's wedding, the world view will stay the same.

When I was in Turkey for two weeks i became enamored in the culture, I'm a sucker for teh ancients. And it helped me while assimilating as I picked up language and general customs while staying with a local family instead of a five star hotel, but the majority of the Americans that go to these places are sheltered in private tours and double digit story hotels.

Terrorists blame our government but i think its more our way of life and what we perceive as valuable here that really gets them going. They see our news as easily as we can see there's. Needless to say the headlines on Fox and its neighbors or not indicative of a culture that should be respected.

I can totally see the Americans, in a attempt to stimulate economic growth in Iraq, giving "incentive" to Iraqi officials to move away. this would definitely cause them to migrate to Jordan(I don't think American officials were telling them go specifically to Jordan), its close and relatively cheap when they would be buying. This causes property to become scarce and drives price up. Its another case of American intervention with good intentions going awry.
 
I agree with CHam and Gorilla. Here's the funny thing, if we(America) don't give aide and money to everyone and their dog we are called greedy assholes, or worse.

Its almost like if you try to give a bum a job. They don't want the job, they just want the money.

Just like these countries don't want to fall in line with our policies(for the money). They just want the money for free.

And I for one have never heard of something for nothing.:)

So, better to give noone anything. That way all get what they put in - nothing.:)
 
Last edited:
Murdock said:
I agree with CHam and Gorilla. Here's the funny thing, if we(America) don't give aide and money to everyone and their dog we are called greedy assholes, or worse.

Its almost like if you try to give a bum a job. They don't want the job, they just want the money.

Just like these countries don't want to fall in line with our policies(for the money). They just want the money for free.

And I for one have never heard of something for nothing.:)

So, better to give noone anything. That way all get what they put in - nothing.:)
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem. They want teh aid but won't listen to what we have to say. This becomes a problem because we think we're entitled to giving our two cents(in whatever form it may be) when we shell out billions in aid.

That's why I say let America be greedy, the critics can watch as they slip further down teh rabbit hole waiting for us to just dangle the rope.
 
My favorite part of this whole Gadhafi situation is his MAJOR crush on Condi Rice. :lol: I dunno. I'm just picturing this evil dictator walking into his room after a long day of evil-dictatoring, sitting down on his computer, and unwinding with a nice google image search for Condoleezza. :lol:
 
CHamburger said:
I'm kinda tired of everyone shitting on America when half our national debt is from foreign aid we've given to the same critical countries. We should just mind our own business and wait for the world to call on their superheroes lmao
Click to expand...

Not true. Not even close to being true. We give very little as a % of GDP compared to other developed nations. We're actually stingy as sin.
 
Lost here is the fact that the Libyan uprising wasn't manufactured or orchestrated -- it was an extension of a grass roots movement that's taking place all over the middles east -- including Israel and is probably what is really behind the rioting in the UK. Sooner or later, people get sick of the bullshit.
Does the West (NATO) have ulterior motives? Probably -- but this is not the same situation as Iraq.
 
brianluce said:
Lost here is the fact that the Libyan uprising wasn't manufactured or orchestrated -- it was an extension of a grass roots movement that's taking place all over the middles east -- including Israel and is probably what is really behind the rioting in the UK. Sooner or later, people get sick of the bullshit.
Does the West (NATO) have ulterior motives? Probably -- but this is not the same situation as Iraq.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
brianluce said:
Well you should because taking the raw number is virtually meaningless.
Click to expand...

For the sake of discussion let's say you are flat busted. You are standing on the corner begging for change. That's how bad hings have gotten for you.

Now, let's take two scenarios:

1. A man with $100,00 pulls up and gives you $10,000 dollars.

2. A man with $10,000,000 pulls up and gives you $100,000.

Which man has done more for you? One gave you 10% of his total holdings and the other gave you 1% of his total holdings. But the 1% was worth 10x's the 10%. Does it matter what the total holdings were of the man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top