Newsweek: Why the world fears America
- Thread starter BuckNaked
- Start date
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
I just read that awhile ago... VERY well written and it says a lot more than most talking heads on TV are saying...
This isn't about Saddam anymore, it is about America and the world in the 21st Century.
: ) Hopper
This isn't about Saddam anymore, it is about America and the world in the 21st Century.
: ) Hopper
everyone that does not share your opinion is "anti-american". You made that already clear in your numerous posts.
btw: good read
I agree, I dont realy care about a war in Iraq anymore, I care about how the international community will recover from this disaster
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Excellent red, though I'm still reading it... I like this quote
"while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning."
"while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning."
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Not surprising at all. Our currency is the only worth anything for international trade and we back it with military power and unlimited natural resources, so if they want dollars it's not politically wise to cut off the largest importer of their goods. Talk about depressions in whatever country chooses to do so, and we'll just buy it from somewere else while they "gang" up on us
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How is it really then?Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Good example of just playing along, and not showing how it really is.
America yields considerable influence over all. Most foreign policy done through the U.N. is essentially U.S. foreign policy more or less. Bush is showing how the U.S. does in fact does not need countries involving international matters and there is little to nothing that another country can do. However, this is not necessarily a good thing as this article argues, and it would be in the our best interest to work with the international community in minor ways such as participating in treaties and just play along.
Do you really like attacking people always? Does this fit your criteria? Or am I completely off as always and need your ominipotent guidance?
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Not surprising at all. Our currency is the only worth anything for international trade and we back it with military power and unlimited natural resources, so if they want dollars it's not politically wise to cut off the largest importer of their goods. Talk about depressions in whatever country chooses to do so, and we'll just buy it from somewere else while they "gang" up on us
Your thoughts are exactly why the EU formed the Euro. The dollar is probably used in about 1/2 the world trade.
Unlimited natural resources is wholly BS, no country has an unlimited amount of natural resources. I'm not a merchantilist, but its pragmatic to say that natural resources are limited. What you say about unwise to cut of exports to the US, leading to a depression is also false. OPEC refused to sell oil to the US in the 70s, and we all know what happened to the US in the 70s; one of the largest inflation periods and depressions.
Do you really think that the US can "buy elsewhere" if half the world gangs up? Depending on which half of the world (and im not talking some small rather insignificant country like Vietname, Albania, Zimbabwe, etc), the US will be in big shiznit. That toppled the USSR, and it can topple the USA, albeit it would be harder to do.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
1/2 I don't buy it, as the story told we import more than 1/2 the worlds production and we deal in dollars not euros. Dispite trying to peg the euro to the dollar it's loosing value it's 1.08 today.
It was a comparative term. Compared to other counties we have unlimited natural resources in addition we have the capability to buy (with the valueable dollar) wherever we are lacking before anyone else can because our money has more value. Thus for all protical purposes we have unlimited natural resources. Opec was broken very quickly because they could'nt afford to continue this isolationist policy and really could'nt afford to to it today with the style of life they've grown accostomed to. Since then we have other sources for oil and will soon have a steady reliable stream from former Iraq.
They can't afford to. China Hates our guts but will go into starvation without the trade.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Hey don't get your panties in a bunch. All I was asking was for you to clarify what you meant by "Good example of just playing along, and not showing how it really is. " Sorry if you took my question as an attack. BTW, I still don't understand what you meant by that. Did you mean the article was a "Good example of just playing along, and not showing how it really is. " or how it was good example on how the US should play along with the world community?Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How is it really then?Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
America yields considerable influence over all. Most foreign policy done through the U.N. is essentially U.S. foreign policy more or less. Bush is showing how the U.S. does in fact does not need countries involving international matters and there is little to nothing that another country can do. However, this is not necessarily a good thing as this article argues, and it would be in the our best interest to work with the international community in minor ways such as participating in treaties and just play along.
Do you really like attacking people always? Does this fit your criteria? Or am I completely off as always and need your ominipotent guidance?
Oh please. Proof please. The government may have a distate, but everywhere you go, the people want to buy "American made" goods like Nike. Its the fact that the majority of the world looks up to America (even France, if you ever go there), and yet the American people seem to be actively making fun of them or given them the opposite end of the treatment.
Well, foremost I said world trade. World trade does not include domestic trade. Even if half the world's products are made by the USA, a majority of them still wind up in the hands of the people of the US.
I'd like to see where you read that. To my understanding, OPEC embargo'ed oil in 1973, during an Isreali-Arab conflict. Since the US is Pro-Isreal, OPEC decided it was the perfect time to launch the embargo. US and European countries before then essentially controlled and price-fixed what the OPEC nations had to sell oil from. After the embargo, OPEC got the upperhand by dictating what prices to sell the oil at ($3 barrel to $13). While it is true that oil TODAY is lower than post 1973 embargo, adjust for inflation, it still fux0red the US.
And your last comment about Iraq makes the pacficist liberals believe as if the War with Iraq is oil motivated. But even if a democratic regime is installed in Iraq, theres no stopping them from continuing to be an OPEC member, as Iraq is an OPEC member now.
Oh and yes, it is well written in general, even if I do not believe with some of his points.
Alright fair enough. I'm just piss tired as ATOT seems to be very vulture-like making me become more high strung.
I apologize.I'm saying the article is doing a good job of showing how the U.S. should play along with the world community. But I do believe the U.S. CAN take the path it is doing right now (although not necessarily beneficial). As the article said, lots of countries are essentially taking thier stances for more cynical reasons, including the US. However, to make minor concessions and to just play along would be best for the international community as a whole, while still being able to continue the more cynical path (as I believe every country does).
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I think that the US has an arrogance problem at times - its people are evidence of that enough with the views of many, but I don't think it's any worse than another country would be if it was as powerful and I fear that a lot of the anti-war sentiment is not anti-war but anti-US. So a person that otherwise might actually agree with the pro-war position is so far against the US that anything the us does is automatically bad and meddling so they say they are anti-war.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
No problem Grimlock. Btw, I agree with what you say.Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Alright fair enough. I'm just piss tired as ATOT seems to be very vulture-like making me become more high strung.
I'm saying the article is doing a good job of showing how the U.S. should play along with the world community. But I do believe the U.S. CAN take the path it is doing right now (although not necessarily beneficial). As the article said, lots of countries are essentially taking thier stances for more cynical reasons, including the US. However, to make minor concessions and to just play along would be best for the international community as a whole, while still being able to continue the more cynical path.
The global community doesn't hate Americans. They may dislike *some* U.S. "I know better" policy, but in general, the rest of the world is too tied up in living their own lives/problems to give a sh*t about the good ole USA or anyone else for that matter.
As long as we don't directly impinge on their autonomy, they could care less about us.
As long as we are the premier economic trading power, the USA will continue to be *THE* dominant force in global politics/policy/trade. As the saying goes: "Money talks, bulls*t walks."
As long as we don't directly impinge on their autonomy, they could care less about us.
As long as we are the premier economic trading power, the USA will continue to be *THE* dominant force in global politics/policy/trade. As the saying goes: "Money talks, bulls*t walks."
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
just because they think something doesn't mean it isn't based on a fair degree of ignorance. 60 minutes had a bit where they asked american war protestors questions about iraq and the whole situation. it was quite sad that many couldn't answer simple but fundamental questions about their own cause.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter