What are Americans so scared of?

[Rhody Trader]

Victim mentality is perhaps why they are also banging on Chinese to sort out their human rights and raise the yuan.

The human rights thing has nothing to do with a "victim mentaility". It stems from the Christian morality underpinning the country. I'm not defending it. The moral superiority some in this country put forth makes me nauseous. I did a presentation in grad school during the days when Most Favored Nation status was the big talking point. The talking heads were again doing their "improve your human rights or else" dance and in my presentation I basically said they should shut the f--k up because we ain't exactly squeaky clean and were not going to pull MFN in any case. I had 3 Chinese students in the class who told me they'd never heard an American talk like that. On the flip side I had an old woman relate it to Nazi Germany, which blew my mind.

Now the yuan thing definitely has a strong placing-the-blame aspect to it, but we're hardly alone there. The European talking heads have been at least as vocal on that subject.

 

[DashRiprock]

i think anyone who says "america is a bad country and the people in it are stupid" or "america is a great country and everyone admires the people in it" are either too stupid or too ignorant and probably both to look at it sensibly.

 

[Atilla]

i think anyone who says "america is a bad country and the people in it are stupid" or "america is a great country and everyone admires the people in it" are either too stupid or too ignorant and probably both to look at it sensibly.

Stop being diplomatic and tell us what you really think now...

 

[Atilla]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/02/why_does_the_us_so_often_back.html

Is America afraid of democracy in the Middle East?

Considering the fact (as we are told) the reason why the US went into war in Afghanistan and Iraq was to bring freedom and democracy to the people - one would have expect that they would be just a little more enthusiastic about the uprising in Egypt. No:?:

I'm baffled as to why this is not the case. Moreover - as there is absolutely zero cost to the US and perhaps now they will no longer have to pay billions in appeasement money to a tyrant.

Other than some pussy footing softly softly words to Mr - look here I was a General once you know, Mubarek there is little from the US.

Let's hope it stays this way and true democracy can breath some life into the region...

 

[montmorencyt2w]

People may say it's all conspiracy baloney, but if you read "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man", the author would argue that whether the USA wants democracy or not in any particular country is not really the issue.

What the USA is concerned about in key countries is that that country will not exercise self-determination if there is any danger that this will not coincide with the interests of the USA. This is mainly why they hated Castro and why they hate Chavez; that they were also leftists was secondary. For similar reasons this is why the British hated Nasser in the 1950s. When Britain and France invaded Suez in 1956, the USA was then playing a slightly different game. It wanted to destroy the remaining power of the two old imperialists, and so pulled the plug on the invasion; it suited their book to support Nasser for the time being. They probably thought they could control him if necessary.

The key "allies" in that area are Israel and Saudi Arabia, and since the 1970s, an American- and Israeli-friendly Egypt, ruled by someone acceptable to the USA.
The USA will be perfectly happy for a democratic election to take place and for democracy to elect a leader of the people of Egypt's choosing, just provided that the people of Egypt choose the "right" man.

When you look at the world in this light, there are very few mysteries in global politics in the events since, say 1945. It's the same old story time and time again. What's surprising is that anyone ever finds any of it surprising.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Considering the fact (as we are told) the reason why the US went into war in Afghanistan and Iraq was to bring freedom and democracy to the people - one would have expect that they would be just a little more enthusiastic about the uprising in Egypt. No:?:

This situation is a lot like having a best mate on the brink of breaking up with his girlfriend. Even if he'll be better off without her, you can't slag her off yet because if they stay together there's all kinds of hurt feelings. You have to play things very diplomatically until the situation resolves itself.

 

[Rhody Trader]

When you look at the world in this light, there are very few mysteries in global politics in the events since, say 1945. It's the same old story time and time again. What's surprising is that anyone ever finds any of it surprising.

You can go back thousands of years further than 1945. Do really think the Romans didn't play these same games? And the Egyptians?

Even if you're looking at a recent comparative point, I'd argue that 1945 is not a good year to pick given that was the start of the Cold War which featured two primary global powers creating essentially a dualistic geopolitical situation. You'd want to go back before the wars to find a more complex dynamic akin to what we have now. I'm not a historian, but I'm thinking this can't be horribly dissimilar to the post-expansionary days of the British empire.

 

[Atilla]

You can go back thousands of years further than 1945. Do really think the Romans didn't play these same games? And the Egyptians?

Even if you're looking at a recent comparative point, I'd argue that 1945 is not a good year to pick given that was the start of the Cold War which featured two primary global powers creating essentially a dualistic geopolitical situation. You'd want to go back before the wars to find a more complex dynamic akin to what we have now. I'm not a historian, but I'm thinking this can't be horribly dissimilar to the post-expansionary days of the British empire.

Absolutely true and pretty much the same for last 2000 years of history if not 4000.

However, the two world wars culminated in the horrible realisation that after 2000 years of war in Europe - pretty much most people/countries/nations/tribes were where they were. In summary - English/French/Germans/Spanish/Italians at war with each other...

I do feel humanity has progressed and whilst we have the capacity to kill at a much faster rate - there is in general a negative response to domination and conquest from the mass public. Hence, this is why some incident has to be played out as some justification that we have been wronged to warrant war.

What I'm trying to say is - humanity has evolved along with 247 instant communications. There is empathy to ones fellow man and brutal regimes can not last.

Cusp of a new era and new paradigms are being established as we speak. Butchers of yesterday will not be here much longer tomorrow.

 

[Pat494]

I do feel humanity has progressed and whilst we have the capacity to kill at a much faster rate - there is in general a negative response to domination and conquest from the mass public. Hence, this is why some incident has to be played out as some justification that we have been wronged to warrant war.

What I'm trying to say is - humanity has evolved along with 247 instant communications. There is empathy to ones fellow man and brutal regimes can not last.

Cusp of a new era and new paradigms are being established as we speak. Butchers of yesterday will not be here much longer tomorrow.

Ah if only
You live in hopes and dreams Atilla
Man's nature hasn't really changed.
The political and social constructs of thinkers/academics last as long as their devoted followers can stand the pressure and then it's on to the next NEW Change or so the masses think - silly sods.
There have always been those that have an unequal share of what's going and those that want it off them.
So conflict is the natural course of man not munching grass in the field of life.

 

[Atilla]

Ah if only
You live in hopes and dreams Atilla
Man's nature hasn't really changed.
The political and social constructs of thinkers/academics last as long as their devoted followers can stand the pressure and then it's on to the next NEW Change or so the masses think - silly sods.
There have always been those that have an unequal share of what's going and those that want it off them.
So conflict is the natural course of man not munching grass in the field of life.

I do not see the attrocities of the last 2000 year repeating them selves on the scale we have witnessed in history.

I see the end of religions and military mights. Instead there is the new humanity which people will subscribe and belong to.

Beyond survival - primary instincts - there is evolution of thought and spirituality that nourishes one.

I do not believe in God but I do believe in humanity.


Just as we look back 2000 years and cringe it will be the same in another 200 years I reckon...

 

[chilltrader]

Don't Americans have the best guns... why should they be afraid of anyone?

Oh! hang on... they shoot each other in schools, colleges, hospitals, parks, offices.. in fact anywhere and everywhere !!

... probably afraid of themselves most ?!

 

[Shakone]

I do not see the attrocities of the last 2000 year repeating them selves on the scale we have witnessed in history.

I see the end of religions and military mights. Instead there is the new humanity which people will subscribe and belong to.

Beyond survival - primary instincts - there is evolution of thought and spirituality that nourishes one.

I do not believe in God but I do believe in humanity.


Just as we look back 2000 years and cringe it will be the same in another 200 years I reckon...

But the recent trend is that militaries are growing stronger, there are more deaths as a result of wars, the gap between rich and poor is increasing, the economic wars seem to be more prevalent, the religious population is increasing (perhaps not as a % of population increase, but still going up, not down). Civil unrest is increasing, and we are consuming resources at a rate that can't last. So our primal survival instincts will kick in at some point, and there will be wars over resources. People will not be spiritual in those circumstances.

There hasn't been an evolution in humans that has made these things about to reverse, at least not one that i can see. If anything I see more atrocities, more deaths, more wars in the next 2,000 years than in the past 2,000. All the evidence seems to suggest that. Your idea is a much more pleasant idea though

 

[Pat494]

The present human thoughts seem to always err - on the too little too late

e,g, climate change. We have the ability to stop it in its tracks but no, they have a jolly time at Cancun and come away with the usual blather - hopeless. If one's house is catching fire most people try and put out the flames etc. Not the present breed of ineffectual world leaders tho.

e,g, nuclear threats - more talk and yet more blather. Not until its too late and North Korea has planted a bomb in New York will the spineless jellies do anything.

I have great hopes that the will of the people on the internet will be make the politicians actually do enough in time or ELSE.

 

[Trader333]

Not until its too late and North Korea has planted a bomb in New York will the spineless jellies do anything.

If that happened what do you think would be the end result ?


Paul

 

[Ambrose Ackroyd]

Irreversible global mayhem, I should imagine.

 

[Pat494]

If that happened what do you think would be the end result ?


Paul

aha let's hope they have their data backed up and stored in Minneapolis



The Yanks would go beserk !!

 

[Trader333]

In my view about 20 mins later NK would cease to exist.


Paul

 

[Atilla]

The present human thoughts seem to always err - on the too little too late

e,g, climate change. We have the ability to stop it in its tracks but no, they have a jolly time at Cancun and come away with the usual blather - hopeless. If one's house is catching fire most people try and put out the flames etc. Not the present breed of ineffectual world leaders tho.

e,g, nuclear threats - more talk and yet more blather. Not until its too late and North Korea has planted a bomb in New York will the spineless jellies do anything.

I have great hopes that the will of the people on the internet will be make the politicians actually do enough in time or ELSE.

If a dirty bomb is planted - with the US having so many enemies - they'll be spoilt for targets...

I think it will be squeaky bum time for quite a few nations.

I hardly think any nation would own up. I also not sure how they could possibly identify culprit...


Of course similar the inside job on the twin towers it could be a one of those broken arrow sweet patriots wanting to build a better stronger USA?


The mind bogles...

 

[RedRenegade]

The key "allies" in that area are Israel and Saudi Arabia, and since the 1970s, an American- and Israeli-friendly Egypt, ruled by someone acceptable to the USA.
The USA will be perfectly happy for a democratic election to take place and for democracy to elect a leader of the people of Egypt's choosing, just provided that the people of Egypt choose the "right" man.

When you look at the world in this light, there are very few mysteries in global politics in the events since, say 1945. It's the same old story time and time again. What's surprising is that anyone ever finds any of it surprising.

The USA is front stabbing Israel though... probably hoping to come up with some winners in this whole revolutionary debacle right now

 

[Atilla]

The USA is front stabbing Israel though... probably hoping to come up with some winners in this whole revolutionary debacle right now

You mean 'Netanyahu spat into Obama's eye' don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/jerusalem-approves-20-new_n_510965.html