[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Since when has Obama held this very narcissitic view of the U.S? He's praised previous American presidents, he's praised other very influential American political figures, and he has often talked about how he feels that in no other country be given the oppurtuinity to accomplish as much as he has. I always hear about how Obama has these deep "anti-american" sentiments - I haven't seen them.As for "appeasing" Russia; that's a very distorted perspective to have on the Administration's decision vis-a-vis the missile defense. Obama still has plans on having missile defense for Europe, he's just refining it. The reason why Russia was against Bush's missile defense plan was because they didn't want the U.S. having a military foothold in Eastern Europe. Obama still plans on having a military foothold in Eastern Europe.
The Anti-American sentiments are apparent from the apology tour, as well as from his ludicrous post-American "I am a citizen of the World" rhetoric. I do hope you're right about Obama wanting to keep a hold in Eastern Europe, although he might be willing to give that up to in the name of international good will. The people who love their nations the most is the ones that are able to criticize it.. The ones who are unable to do that, are facist sheep... I would rather have a leader who is capable of criticizing our nation in making it better.. THan the ones saying "that our nation is just fine!".. This breeds stagnation and a anti intellectual hostility in which no one can criticize the nation or policies without fear of being called a coward, traitor etc etc.Obama's peace prize????
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Fidosim this is called diplomacy I know its been a long time sense we have had really any talks from a president.. But the "appeasements" are far form that.. The missle shield was seen as a security threat to the Russia, which it really was.. Furthermore Obama never said we had bad people intill he was in office, he specifically said that our policies throught out the world have been hopelessly self serving as well as damaging.. Its better to build bridges than burn them.sSubZerOoIt's not our problem if Russia feels threatened by our pledge to defend Eastern Europe. We're not supposed to be looking out for them, we're supposed to be advancing our own interests.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fidosim this is called diplomacy I know its been a long time sense we have had really any talks from a president.. But the "appeasements" are far form that.. The missle shield was seen as a security threat to the Russia, which it really was.. Furthermore Obama never said we had bad people intill he was in office, he specifically said that our policies throught out the world have been hopelessly self serving as well as damaging.. Its better to build bridges than burn them.fidosimIt's not our problem if Russia feels threatened by our pledge to defend Eastern Europe. We're not supposed to be looking out for them, we're supposed to be advancing our own interests. Than you clearly lack complete grasp of politics. Russia is our ally, they are a possible security risk if they were hostile.. Having a missle defense on their border is a security risk for them which can create a whole new arms race for us.. THAT IS APROBLEM for us as well.. Diplomacy is about making both sides happy, a missle defense system is not neccesary and Russian military felt it was a risk..
The people who love their nations the most is the ones that are able to criticize it.. The ones who are unable to do that, are facist sheep... I would rather have a leader who is capable of criticizing our nation in making it better.. THan the ones saying "that our nation is just fine!".. This breeds stagnation and a anti intellectual hostility in which no one can criticize the nation or policies without fear of being called a coward, traitor etc etc.sSubZerOoThe point is not that he is criticizing our past. The point is that he is using problems in our past to justify not wanting to promote American ideals around the world.
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fidosim this is called diplomacy I know its been a long time sense we have had really any talks from a president.. But the "appeasements" are far form that.. The missle shield was seen as a security threat to the Russia, which it really was.. Furthermore Obama never said we had bad people intill he was in office, he specifically said that our policies throught out the world have been hopelessly self serving as well as damaging.. Its better to build bridges than burn them.sSubZerOoIt's not our problem if Russia feels threatened by our pledge to defend Eastern Europe. We're not supposed to be looking out for them, we're supposed to be advancing our own interests. Than you clearly lack complete grasp of politics. Russia is our ally, they are a possible security risk if they were hostile.. Having a missle defense on their border is a security risk for them which can create a whole new arms race for us.. THAT IS APROBLEM for us as well.. Russia? Our ally? Puh-lease. And no amount of concessions will prevent arms races from happening. The best we can do is win them.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] The people who love their nations the most is the ones that are able to criticize it.. The ones who are unable to do that, are facist sheep... I would rather have a leader who is capable of criticizing our nation in making it better.. THan the ones saying "that our nation is just fine!".. This breeds stagnation and a anti intellectual hostility in which no one can criticize the nation or policies without fear of being called a coward, traitor etc etc.fidosimThe point is not that he is criticizing our past. The point is that he is using problems in our past to justify not wanting to promote American ideals around the world. American ideals like liberty, freedom, and truth? I am pretty sure he has never skimped on those, or any president for that matter when it comes to lip service... What exactly is the american ideal? How is it different from any other western nation?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="fidosim"] It's not our problem if Russia feels threatened by our pledge to defend Eastern Europe. We're not supposed to be looking out for them, we're supposed to be advancing our own interests. fidosimThan you clearly lack complete grasp of politics. Russia is our ally, they are a possible security risk if they were hostile.. Having a missle defense on their border is a security risk for them which can create a whole new arms race for us.. THAT IS APROBLEM for us as well.. Russia? Our ally? Puh-lease. And no amount of concessions will prevent arms races from happening. The best we can do is win them. You can not win a arms race when weapons like nuclear weapons are already in the mix.. In the end BOTH lose.. I would expect you would understand this.. NO ONE wants a arm race, and Russia by no means has done this since the end of the cold war... And yes they are our allies.. The last thing we want from them is another Cold War.. Furthermore they hold major sway to other nations we collaborate with.. You seem to have a oversimplistic view of reality.
American ideals like liberty, freedom, and truth? I am pretty sure he has never skimped on those, or any president for that matter when it comes to lip service... What exactly is the american ideal? How is it different from any other western nation?sSubZerOoThe American ideals are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (intrinsically tied with capitalism). If Obama was interested in promoting these things, then what was he doing while those kids were dying in Iran? Why didn't he stick up for us when folks like Chavez were railing against American capitalism?
You can not win a arms race when weapons like nuclear weapons are already in the mix.. In the end BOTH lose.. I would expect you would understand this.. NO ONE wants a arm race, and Russia by no means has done this since the end of the cold war... And yes they are our allies.. The last thing we want from them is another Cold War.. Furthermore they hold major sway to other nations we collaborate with.. You seem to have a oversimplistic view of reality.sSubZerOoWe won the ideological struggle of the Cold War, even though we didn't want it. We don't want another Cold War, but we can win that too. There's no preventing international tension as long as one country has something that another country wants. The best we can do is play the game and win it.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] American ideals like liberty, freedom, and truth? I am pretty sure he has never skimped on those, or any president for that matter when it comes to lip service... What exactly is the american ideal? How is it different from any other western nation?fidosimThe American ideals are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (intrinsically tied with capitalism). If Obama was interested in promoting these things, then what was he doing while those kids were dying in Iran? Why didn't he stick up for us when folks like Chavez were railing against American capitalism? Where was reagan when he supported the brutal dictatorship in Chile? There is diplomatic reasons why leaders do one thing or the other.. The reason why Obama for instance didn't want to stick up to Iranian people is he specifically wants to open a dialogue with the government.. The last thing he needed after the United States called them the axis of evil through out the entire time, is to support a resistance against a nation they are trying to open talks to it.. Presidents when it comes to foriegn policy rarely ever have supported those ideals be it democratic or republican.. Look at the history of Iran.. The United States overthrew the democratic government (so much for our belief in democracy!), and put into power the brutal dictatorship of the Shah.. A leader we supported for around 26 years going through a whole spectrum of presidents.. To even remotely consider that Obama is some how the only person who doesn't support these views is a vastly ignorant view of american politics infact does not support the views what so ever for the past 60 years.. Be it republican or democrat.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]You can not win a arms race when weapons like nuclear weapons are already in the mix.. In the end BOTH lose.. I would expect you would understand this.. NO ONE wants a arm race, and Russia by no means has done this since the end of the cold war... And yes they are our allies.. The last thing we want from them is another Cold War.. Furthermore they hold major sway to other nations we collaborate with.. You seem to have a oversimplistic view of reality.fidosimWe won the ideological struggle of the Cold War, even though we didn't want it. We don't want another Cold War, but we can win that too. There's no preventing international tension as long as one country has something that another country wants. The best we can do is play the game and win it. No one won the Cold War.. The USSR collapsed on its own accord, in fact we flirted on multiple occassions with the ruination of the entire planet.. (Funny enough it had alot of times was the cause of Israel inthe US being forced in supporting them.. There is no point in starting a Cold War, this would be costly and more.. Furthermore you constantly talk about the president holding american "values'.. When the Cold War policy through out the US history has been completely a contridiction to the American ideals and values to supporting brutal dictatorship, supporting murder of communists in places like the middle East using extremist nationalist groups..
The Anti-American sentiments are apparent from the apology tour, as well as from his ludicrous post-American "I am a citizen of the World" rhetoric. I do hope you're right about Obama wanting to keep a hold in Eastern Europe, although he might be willing to give that up to in the name of international good will. I still don't see how saying "we cannot face the major issues that are confronting Western Civilization alone" constitutes as Anti-Americanism - by calling international unity "anti-america", one ironically perpetuates the arrogance that the president warned of.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Since when has Obama held this very narcissitic view of the U.S? He's praised previous American presidents, he's praised other very influential American political figures, and he has often talked about how he feels that in no other country be given the oppurtuinity to accomplish as much as he has. I always hear about how Obama has these deep "anti-american" sentiments - I haven't seen them.As for "appeasing" Russia; that's a very distorted perspective to have on the Administration's decision vis-a-vis the missile defense. Obama still has plans on having missile defense for Europe, he's just refining it. The reason why Russia was against Bush's missile defense plan was because they didn't want the U.S. having a military foothold in Eastern Europe. Obama still plans on having a military foothold in Eastern Europe.
fidosim
Furthermore, as for "citizen of the world" rhetoric - while you are seem to be exaggerating, said rhetoric shouldn't be anything new, considering how said rhetoric was used for eight years while arguing for the "war on terror". The ultimate rationale for the Iraq war was suppose to be liberating the Iraqi people. One could only feel a moral obligation to topple Saddam Hussein's regime if and only if one viewed oneself as a "citizen of the world" - to feel as if the only thing separating an American from an Iraqi is an artificial boarder, and so we should feel obligated to save our Iraqi brothers and sisters from Saddam Hussein. The same is true for Afghanistan. There is no more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they are all in Pakistan and in other countries, but we continue the war effort in Afghanistan. Why? Supposedly to protect the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban, because apparently we are citizens of the world.
Where was reagan when he supported the brutal dictatorship in Chile? There is diplomatic reasons why leaders do one thing or the other.. The reason why Obama for instance didn't want to stick up to Iranian people is he specifically wants to open a dialogue with the government.. The last thing he needed after the United States called them the axis of evil through out the entire time, is to support a resistance against a nation they are trying to open talks to it.. Presidents when it comes to foriegn policy rarely ever have supported those ideals be it democratic or republican.. Look at the history of Iran.. The United States overthrew the democratic government (so much for our belief in democracy!), and put into power the brutal dictatorship of the Shah.. A leader we supported for around 26 years going through a whole spectrum of presidents.. To even remotely consider that Obama is some how the only person who doesn't support these views is a vastly ignorant view of american politics infact does not support the views what so ever for the past 60 years.. Be it republican or democrat.sSubZerOoWe stand up for our own interests. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran, and that's why we have traditionally interfered in Latin America. Obama thinks our system is fundamentally wrong and thinks (whether consciously or not) that the United States somehow does not deserve to be the world superpower. Obama is not the first person to think this way. There was also Jimmy Carter.
No one won the Cold War.. The USSR collapsed on its own accord, in fact we flirted on multiple occassions with the ruination of the entire planet.. (Funny enough it had alot of times was the cause of Israel inthe US being forced in supporting them.. There is no point in starting a Cold War, this would be costly and more.. Furthermore you constantly talk about the president holding american "values'.. When the Cold War policy through out the US history has been completely a contridiction to the American ideals and values to supporting brutal dictatorship, supporting murder of communists in places like the middle East using extremist nationalist groups.. sSubZerOoNah, we pretty much won. The Soviet Union collapsed largely due to its inability to keep up with American productive capabilities, compounded by internal problems (meaning, after 70 years of state control, the state still couldn't figure out how to feed its own people or manage its economy). What i've been trying to tell you repeatedly is that there is no way to prevent arms races. It is impossible. Our support for authoritarian regimes was a part of looking out for our own interests, something that Barack Obama by and large refuses to do because of his World Citizenship fantasy.
I still don't see how saying "we cannot face the major issues that are confronting Western Civilization alone" constitutes as Anti-Americanism - by calling international unity "anti-america", one ironically perpetuates the arrogance that the president warned of.Furthermore, as for "citizen of the world" rhetoric - while you are seem to be exaggerating, said rhetoric shouldn't be anything new, considering how said rhetoric was used for eight years while arguing for the "war on terror". The ultimate rationale for the Iraq war was suppose to be liberating the Iraqi people. One could only feel a moral obligation to topple Saddam Hussein's regime if and only if one viewed oneself as a "citizen of the world" - to feel as if the only thing separating an American from an Iraqi is an artificial boarder, and so we should feel obligated to save our Iraqi brothers and sisters from Saddam Hussein. The same is true for Afghanistan. There is no more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they are all in Pakistan and in other countries, but we continue the war effort in Afghanistan. Why? Supposedly to protect the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban, because apparently we are citizens of the world.Being a strict internationalist, like Barack Obama, is Anti-American because it favors corrupt international organizations, like the UN, who come onto our soil and tell us what to do, over the interests of the United States. We went into Iraq because we wanted to replace the regime that was there with one amenable to U.S. interests. We went into Afghanistan because it harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. Its hard to say that our invasions are similar to the "we are the world" mentality.-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]No one won the Cold War.. The USSR collapsed on its own accord, in fact we flirted on multiple occassions with the ruination of the entire planet.. (Funny enough it had alot of times was the cause of Israel inthe US being forced in supporting them.. There is no point in starting a Cold War, this would be costly and more.. Furthermore you constantly talk about the president holding american "values'.. When the Cold War policy through out the US history has been completely a contridiction to the American ideals and values to supporting brutal dictatorship, supporting murder of communists in places like the middle East using extremist nationalist groups.. fidosimNah, we pretty much won. The Soviet Union collapsed largely due to its inability to keep up with American productive capabilities, compounded by internal problems (meaning, after 70 years of state control, the state still couldn't figure out how to feed its own people or manage its economy). What i've been trying to tell you repeatedly is that there is no way to prevent arms races. It is impossible. Our support for authoritarian regimes was a part of looking out for our own interests, something that Barack Obama by and large refuses to do because of his World Citizenship fantasy. The Soviet Union collapse due to internal problems (including drought and famine), the U.S. had little to do with it. And what productive capabilities were they unable to keep up with? Because,If we're talking about an arms race they beat us hands down. More guns, more nuclear weapons.
Being a strict internationalist, like Barack Obama, is Anti-American because it favors corrupt international organizations, like the UN, who come onto our soil and tell us what to do, over the interests of the United States. We went into Iraq because we wanted to replace the regime that was there with one amenable to U.S. interests. We went into Afghanistan because it harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. Its hard to say that our invasions are similar to the "we are the world" mentality. That the arrogant "We're America and do whatever the **** we want to" attitude, that gained us most of our enemies.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I still don't see how saying "we cannot face the major issues that are confronting Western Civilization alone" constitutes as Anti-Americanism - by calling international unity "anti-america", one ironically perpetuates the arrogance that the president warned of.Furthermore, as for "citizen of the world" rhetoric - while you are seem to be exaggerating, said rhetoric shouldn't be anything new, considering how said rhetoric was used for eight years while arguing for the "war on terror". The ultimate rationale for the Iraq war was suppose to be liberating the Iraqi people. One could only feel a moral obligation to topple Saddam Hussein's regime if and only if one viewed oneself as a "citizen of the world" - to feel as if the only thing separating an American from an Iraqi is an artificial boarder, and so we should feel obligated to save our Iraqi brothers and sisters from Saddam Hussein. The same is true for Afghanistan. There is no more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they are all in Pakistan and in other countries, but we continue the war effort in Afghanistan. Why? Supposedly to protect the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban, because apparently we are citizens of the world.
fidosim
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Where was reagan when he supported the brutal dictatorship in Chile? There is diplomatic reasons why leaders do one thing or the other.. The reason why Obama for instance didn't want to stick up to Iranian people is he specifically wants to open a dialogue with the government.. The last thing he needed after the United States called them the axis of evil through out the entire time, is to support a resistance against a nation they are trying to open talks to it.. Presidents when it comes to foriegn policy rarely ever have supported those ideals be it democratic or republican.. Look at the history of Iran.. The United States overthrew the democratic government (so much for our belief in democracy!), and put into power the brutal dictatorship of the Shah.. A leader we supported for around 26 years going through a whole spectrum of presidents.. To even remotely consider that Obama is some how the only person who doesn't support these views is a vastly ignorant view of american politics infact does not support the views what so ever for the past 60 years.. Be it republican or democrat.fidosimWe stand up for our own interests. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran, and that's why we have traditionally interfered in Latin America. Obama thinks our system is fundamentally wrong and thinks (whether consciously or not) that the United States somehow does not deserve to be the world superpower. Obama is not the first person to think this way. There was also Jimmy Carter. Oh, you give Carter far too much credit. It has he, after all, who basically gave the okay to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Moreover, Obama isn't the first person to think that ultranationalism was fundamentally wrong. The U.S. even fought a war against ultranationalists, that war being WWII.
The Soviet Union collapse due to internal problems (including drought and famine), the U.S. had little to do with it. And what productive capabilities were they unable to keep up with? Because,If we're talking about an arms race they beat us hands down. More guns, more nuclear weapons.Ace_WondersXThe Soviets kept up at first, but after Detente they had difficulty matintaining the kind of capacities that the United States could. For instance, the Soviets built a lot of nukes, but they couldn't develop the delivery systems that we could. Star Wars is another good example of this. When the Cold War was re-energized in the '80s, Reagan was proposing building new missile defense systems that could destroy ICBMs in space. This was a huge diplomatic blow as the Soviet Union was incapable of matching that kind of a project, even when all of the state's money was funneled into keeping up in the arms race.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]The Soviet Union collapse due to internal problems (including drought and famine), the U.S. had little to do with it. And what productive capabilities were they unable to keep up with? Because,If we're talking about an arms race they beat us hands down. More guns, more nuclear weapons.fidosimThe Soviets kept up at first, but after Detente they had difficulty matintaining the kind of capacities that the United States could. For instance, the Soviets built a lot of nukes, but they couldn't develop the delivery systems that we could. Star Wars is another good example of this. When the Cold War was re-energized in the '80s, Reagan was proposing building new missile defense systems that could destroy ICBMs in space. This was a huge diplomatic blow as the Soviet Union was incapable of matching that kind of a project, even when all of the state's money was funneled into keeping up in the arms race. Star Wars was an idea, I doubt it would have ever been utilized especially in the 80s and I'm pretty most of the Soviet scientist knew it, considering most of our own scientist were saying it was unlikely.
Oh, you give Carter far too much credit. It has he, after all, who basically gave the okay to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Moreover, Obama isn't the first person to think that ultranationalism was fundamentally wrong. The U.S. even fought a war against ultranationalists, that war being WWII.-Sun_Tzu-Hussein really didn't need much of an OK, after Carter refused to support the Shah, and the country fell into the turmoil of the revolution. Not sure what you mean by ultranationalism, although there are a few points to make. I don't think it is extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries, I think that it makes perfect sense. And I wouldn't say that fighting nationalist countries made us opponents of "ultranationalism". We went to war immediately because we were attacked, and our interests were threatened as our economic partners were falling to the Axis.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Where was reagan when he supported the brutal dictatorship in Chile? There is diplomatic reasons why leaders do one thing or the other.. The reason why Obama for instance didn't want to stick up to Iranian people is he specifically wants to open a dialogue with the government.. The last thing he needed after the United States called them the axis of evil through out the entire time, is to support a resistance against a nation they are trying to open talks to it.. Presidents when it comes to foriegn policy rarely ever have supported those ideals be it democratic or republican.. Look at the history of Iran.. The United States overthrew the democratic government (so much for our belief in democracy!), and put into power the brutal dictatorship of the Shah.. A leader we supported for around 26 years going through a whole spectrum of presidents.. To even remotely consider that Obama is some how the only person who doesn't support these views is a vastly ignorant view of american politics infact does not support the views what so ever for the past 60 years.. Be it republican or democrat.fidosimWe stand up for our own interests. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran, and that's why we have traditionally interfered in Latin America. Obama thinks our system is fundamentally wrong and thinks (whether consciously or not) that the United States somehow does not deserve to be the world superpower. Obama is not the first person to think this way. There was also Jimmy Carter.
Oh I see so our American "values and ideals' that you criticize Obama isn't spreading is irrelevent if it inconviences us.. Maybe because our foriegn policy system IS fundamentally wrong and has hurt countless people through out the world for selfish gains? And the largest reasons for hatred towards our country from places like the Middle East was due to this. Your entire idea seems like complete hypocrisy.. First you say he isn't talking about our ideals in freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness.. As if they are extremely important.. Than you defend actions of past presidents because it was inconvient.
Being a strict internationalist, like Barack Obama, is Anti-American because it favors corrupt international organizations, like the UN, who come onto our soil and tell us what to do, over the interests of the United States. We went into Iraq because we wanted to replace the regime that was there with one amenable to U.S. interests. We went into Afghanistan because it harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. Its hard to say that our invasions are similar to the "we are the world" mentality. If the sole reason we invaded Iraq was to replace the regime that was there with other that was amenable to U.S. interests we wouldn't have installed a democracy. A Saddam-like regime was already amenable to U.S. interests, the only problem was Saddam. If we only invaded for nationalistic reasons we would have just changed the leader. As for Afghanistan - again, the people who attacked us on 9/11 are not there anymore, but we are still in Afghanistan. Either we are there because our policy makers are completely oblivious, or we are there to fight totalitarianism. The wars were started by alleged neoconservatives (although I'd dispute that) - I've also seen you define yourself as a neoconservative as well - one of the "tenets" of neoconservatism has always been liberating the world from totalitarianism. It's not a nationalistic ideology.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I still don't see how saying "we cannot face the major issues that are confronting Western Civilization alone" constitutes as Anti-Americanism - by calling international unity "anti-america", one ironically perpetuates the arrogance that the president warned of.Furthermore, as for "citizen of the world" rhetoric - while you are seem to be exaggerating, said rhetoric shouldn't be anything new, considering how said rhetoric was used for eight years while arguing for the "war on terror". The ultimate rationale for the Iraq war was suppose to be liberating the Iraqi people. One could only feel a moral obligation to topple Saddam Hussein's regime if and only if one viewed oneself as a "citizen of the world" - to feel as if the only thing separating an American from an Iraqi is an artificial boarder, and so we should feel obligated to save our Iraqi brothers and sisters from Saddam Hussein. The same is true for Afghanistan. There is no more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they are all in Pakistan and in other countries, but we continue the war effort in Afghanistan. Why? Supposedly to protect the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban, because apparently we are citizens of the world.
fidosim
Star Wars was an idea, I doubt it would have ever been utilized especially in the 80s and I'm pretty most of the Soviet scientist knew it, considering most of our own scientist were saying it was unlikely.Ace_WondersXFrom what we know now, the Soviets took it quite seriously, regardless of whether or not it was really practical to implement it. It helped contribute to the chain of events that caused Soviet leaders to completely lose confidence in their system.
he got it because he isn't bush. that's the only reason. even Obama himself wasn't enough of an *** to say he felt he earned it.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Oh, you give Carter far too much credit. It has he, after all, who basically gave the okay to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Moreover, Obama isn't the first person to think that ultranationalism was fundamentally wrong. The U.S. even fought a war against ultranationalists, that war being WWII.fidosimHussein really didn't need much of an OK, after Carter refused to support the Shah, and the country fell into the turmoil of the revolution. Not sure what you mean by ultranationalism, although there are a few points to make. I don't think it is extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries, I think that it makes perfect sense. And I wouldn't say that fighting nationalist countries made us opponents of "ultranationalism". We went to war immediately because we were attacked, and our interests were threatened as our economic partners were falling to the Axis. Then there is no point in continuing this argument because your view is that you're willing to accept the death and suffering of innocents as long as they aren't Americans and the U.S. benefits from it.
We can promote our national interests and promote our ideals by Americanizing countries that are belligerent or threatening to us. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do either of these things. It's impossible to know what his policy really is, but its almost as if his goal is to slowly remove the U.S. from the picture. I could be wrong, but I think the World Citizenship, Post-American rhetoric is an indication that he doesn't believe the U.S. should maintain its economic empire.Oh I see so our American "values and ideals' that you criticize Obama isn't spreading is irrelevent if it inconviences us..
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Oh, you give Carter far too much credit. It has he, after all, who basically gave the okay to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Moreover, Obama isn't the first person to think that ultranationalism was fundamentally wrong. The U.S. even fought a war against ultranationalists, that war being WWII.fidosimHussein really didn't need much of an OK, after Carter refused to support the Shah, and the country fell into the turmoil of the revolution. Not sure what you mean by ultranationalism, although there are a few points to make. I don't think it is extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries, I think that it makes perfect sense. And I wouldn't say that fighting nationalist countries made us opponents of "ultranationalism". We went to war immediately because we were attacked, and our interests were threatened as our economic partners were falling to the Axis. It's not necessarily extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries - it does become extreme when one goes to extreme lengths to do so. Tens of thousands of civilians have died because of the war in Afghanistan, and about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. If you feel as if they died for the interests of the U.S., that's fine, but you'd have to accept that such a mindset is nationalism taken to the extreme.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]We can promote our national interests and promote our ideals by Americanizing countries that are belligerent or threatening to us. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do either of these things. It's impossible to know what his policy really is, but its almost as if his goal is to slowly remove the U.S. from the picture. I could be wrong, but I think the World Citizenship, Post-American rhetoric is an indication that he doesn't believe the U.S. should maintain its economic empire. Your views are Imperialistic, something the U.S. fought against previously.Oh I see so our American "values and ideals' that you criticize Obama isn't spreading is irrelevent if it inconviences us..
fidosim
[QUOTE="nchan"]Obama is an icon. He earns it. Do you know what Obama symbolize for us, minorities, the underprivileged, and the disadvantages? People of the dominant who are more privileged and are the typical representation of U.S society, might not necessary see what he symbolize, but we do. DA_B0MBThat's true but that has nothing to do with peace.
LOL. Obama was about as far from the "disadvantaged and underprivileged" as you could get, his entire life.
Oh I see so our American "values and ideals' that you criticize Obama isn't spreading is irrelevent if it inconviences us..
We can promote our national interests and promote our ideals by Americanizing countries that are belligerent or threatening to us. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do either of these things. It's impossible to know what his policy really is, but its almost as if his goal is to slowly remove the U.S. from the picture. I could be wrong, but I think the World Citizenship, Post-American rhetoric is an indication that he doesn't believe the U.S. should maintain its economic empire. Maybe because the majority of the animosity for the past few decades has been teh constant rhetoric that there is just the United States.. And that constant your eithe rwith us or against us.. Americanizing countries? Our past 60 years of politics has never been about that, the United States has been just as selfish or volitle as the Soviet Union in merely going after poltiical and economic gains regardless in the costs. The United States being a super power is pretty irrelevent aside from the selfish idea of you wanting to be in control in dictating policy through out the world.. No country should ever be in such a position.If the sole reason we invaded Iraq was to replace the regime that was there with other that was amenable to U.S. interests we wouldn't have installed a democracy. A Saddam-like regime was already amenable to U.S. interests, the only problem was Saddam. If we only invaded for nationalistic reasons we would have just changed the leader. As for Afghanistan - again, the people who attacked us on 9/11 are not there anymore, but we are still in Afghanistan. Either we are there because our policy makers are completely oblivious, or we are there to fight totalitarianism. The wars were started by alleged neoconservatives (although I'd dispute that) - I've also seen you define yourself as a neoconservative as well - one of the "tenets" of neoconservatism has always been liberating the world from totalitarianism. It's not a nationalistic ideology. -Sun_Tzu-I agree that we wanted to give Iraq some "American" institutions. Americanization is always a part of the picture when we fight wars abroad. Saddam was our partner in the 80s, but our relations changed during the 90s with his invasion of Kuwait and the chemical attacks he committed on the Kurds. But we had tangible interests as well. By replacing the authoritarian Hussein regime with a democratic one, we could take a crucial step in turning the Middle East from a backwards, tumultuous place to one that a political and economic partner of the United States. By promoting American ideals in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can also benefit by having stable allies in that part of the world. Likewise, we have to protect the Afghan goverment from the encroaching Taliban because the government is amenable to our interests and we don't want the government that harbored the 9/11 attackers to return to power. Neo-Conservatism IS about spreading American values to other parts of the world, but that is not simply idealism. The idea is that having more pro-American governments will also have tangible benefits for us.
That's true but that has nothing to do with peace.[QUOTE="DA_B0MB"][QUOTE="nchan"]Obama is an icon. He earns it. Do you know what Obama symbolize for us, minorities, the underprivileged, and the disadvantages? People of the dominant who are more privileged and are the typical representation of U.S society, might not necessary see what he symbolize, but we do. grenadexjumpr
LOL. Obama was about as far from the "disadvantaged and underprivileged" as you could get, his entire life.
Um, the man worked in the inner-cities of Chicago for a good portion of his life. You really can't get any closer to the disadvantaged and underprivileged.[QUOTE="grenadexjumpr"][QUOTE="DA_B0MB"] That's true but that has nothing to do with peace. -Sun_Tzu-
LOL. Obama was about as far from the "disadvantaged and underprivileged" as you could get, his entire life.
Um, the man worked in the inner-cities of Chicago for a good portion of his life. You really can't get any closer to the disadvantaged and underprivileged.
That poster more than likely meant to say that Obama was basically one of those people. Which he isn't and never has been. Just because you work in a disadvantaged district does not mean you represent the ideals or values of said community or "peoples." Obama has experienced little to no hardship in his life, same with his wife.
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]We can promote our national interests and promote our ideals by Americanizing countries that are belligerent or threatening to us. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do either of these things. It's impossible to know what his policy really is, but its almost as if his goal is to slowly remove the U.S. from the picture. I could be wrong, but I think the World Citizenship, Post-American rhetoric is an indication that he doesn't believe the U.S. should maintain its economic empire. Maybe because the majority of the animosity for the past few decades has been teh constant rhetoric that there is just the United States.. And that constant your eithe rwith us or against us.. Americanizing countries? Our past 60 years of politics has never been about that, the United States has been just as selfish or volitle as the Soviet Union in merely going after poltiical and economic gains regardless in the costs. The United States being a super power is pretty irrelevent aside from the selfish idea of you wanting to be in control in dictating policy through out the world.. No country should ever be in such a position. Promoting American ideals was very much a part of the Cold War. It was an ideological struggle. We promoted democracy and capitalism, especially in western Europe. If you were to travel from, say, France to Hungary during the 1960s or '70s, it would be clear to see the benefits of our system over the Soviet system. After the Second World War, we sent millions to rebuild the infrastructure of our European allies. which in turn made them prosperous allies and trading partners. We promoted our system in Europe, while still reaping real benefits from it.Oh I see so our American "values and ideals' that you criticize Obama isn't spreading is irrelevent if it inconviences us..
sSubZerOo
It's not necessarily extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries - it does become extreme when one goes to extreme lengths to do so. Tens of thousands of civilians have died because of the war in Afghanistan, and about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. If you feel as if they died for the interests of the U.S., that's fine, but you'd have to accept that such a mindset is nationalism taken to the extreme. -Sun_Tzu-Would you then be willing to call FDR an ultranationalist? At the outbreak of the war in Europe, and at the ongoing Sino-Japanese War, he was appalled that people were being "ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air". Yet once we entered the war, countless civilians had to die before the regimes we were fighting could be broken.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="fidosim"] We can promote our national interests and promote our ideals by Americanizing countries that are belligerent or threatening to us. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do either of these things. It's impossible to know what his policy really is, but its almost as if his goal is to slowly remove the U.S. from the picture. I could be wrong, but I think the World Citizenship, Post-American rhetoric is an indication that he doesn't believe the U.S. should maintain its economic empire.fidosimMaybe because the majority of the animosity for the past few decades has been teh constant rhetoric that there is just the United States.. And that constant your eithe rwith us or against us.. Americanizing countries? Our past 60 years of politics has never been about that, the United States has been just as selfish or volitle as the Soviet Union in merely going after poltiical and economic gains regardless in the costs. The United States being a super power is pretty irrelevent aside from the selfish idea of you wanting to be in control in dictating policy through out the world.. No country should ever be in such a position. Promoting American ideals was very much a part of the Cold War. It was an ideological struggle. We promoted democracy and capitalism, especially in western Europe. If you were to travel from, say, France to Hungary during the 1960s or '70s, it would be clear to see the benefits of our system over the Soviet system. After the Second World War, we sent millions to rebuild the infrastructure of our European allies. which in turn made them prosperous allies and trading partners. We promoted our system in Europe, while still reaping real benefits from it.
The problem with what you just said is that you act like our system is the polar opposite of Communism which it isn't. Our mixed economy has parts of socialism and capitalism. Many of the Western European nations are far more socialist than we are. So you can't say they use our system.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]If the sole reason we invaded Iraq was to replace the regime that was there with other that was amenable to U.S. interests we wouldn't have installed a democracy. A Saddam-like regime was already amenable to U.S. interests, the only problem was Saddam. If we only invaded for nationalistic reasons we would have just changed the leader. As for Afghanistan - again, the people who attacked us on 9/11 are not there anymore, but we are still in Afghanistan. Either we are there because our policy makers are completely oblivious, or we are there to fight totalitarianism. The wars were started by alleged neoconservatives (although I'd dispute that) - I've also seen you define yourself as a neoconservative as well - one of the "tenets" of neoconservatism has always been liberating the world from totalitarianism. It's not a nationalistic ideology. fidosimI agree that we wanted to give Iraq some "American" institutions. Americanization is always a part of the picture when we fight wars abroad. Saddam was our partner in the 80s, but our relations changed during the 90s with his invasion of Kuwait and the chemical attacks he committed on the Kurds. But we had tangible interests as well. By replacing the authoritarian Hussein regime with a democratic one, we could take a crucial step in turning the Middle East from a backwards, tumultuous place to one that a political and economic partner of the United States. By promoting American ideals in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can also benefit by having stable allies in that part of the world. Likewise, we have to protect the Afghan goverment from the encroaching Taliban because the government is amenable to our interests and we don't want the government that harbored the 9/11 attackers to return to power. Neo-Conservatism IS about spreading American values to other parts of the world, but that is not simply idealism. The idea is that having more pro-American governments will also have tangible benefits for us. No, neoconservatism is not a nationalistic ideology. A powerful America is not the final aspiration for a neoconservatism, it is merely the vessel that is being used to promote the liberation of other countries. After all, neoconservatism is basically a very moderate form of Trotskyism - as Irving Kristol once said, a neoconservative is a liberal who has been "mugged by reality". It's a very progressive ideology.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It's not necessarily extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries - it does become extreme when one goes to extreme lengths to do so. Tens of thousands of civilians have died because of the war in Afghanistan, and about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. If you feel as if they died for the interests of the U.S., that's fine, but you'd have to accept that such a mindset is nationalism taken to the extreme. fidosimWould you then be willing to call FDR an ultranationalist? At the outbreak of the war in Europe, and at the ongoing Sino-Japanese War, he was appalled that people were being "ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air". Yet once we entered the war, countless civilians had to die before the regimes we were fighting could be broken. Open war is different from times of peace.
No, neoconservatism is not a nationalistic ideology. A powerful America is not the final aspiration for a neoconservatism, it is merely the vessel that is being used to promote the liberation of other countries. After all, neoconservatism is basically a very moderate form of Trotskyism - as Irving Kristol once said, a neoconservative is a liberal who has been "mugged by reality". It's a very progressive ideology. -Sun_Tzu-It has a pretty broad definition. The only real universal definition of a Neo-Conservative is someone that wants to export American democratic values to other countries. It isn't a stretch to say that doing that would in turn provide allies for the United States, or that exporting our system to other countries would in turn boost our political position. It's cool having you call me a progressive though.
I wouldn't say that they are polar opposites, but they are very different systems. Having a strong welfare state has a long history in many European countries, so they weren't exactly like us either, but they DID subscribe to the free-market principles that we did by-and-large, and they benefitted tremendously from it.The problem with what you just said is that you act like our system is the polar opposite of Communism which it isn't. Our mixed economy has parts of socialism and capitalism. Many of the Western European nations are far more socialist than we are. So you can't say they use our system.
Ace_WondersX
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]I wouldn't say that they are polar opposites, but they are very different systems. Having a strong welfare state has a long history in many European countries, so they weren't exactly like us either, but they DID subscribe to the free-market principles that we did by-and-large, and they benefitted tremendously from it.The problem with what you just said is that you act like our system is the polar opposite of Communism which it isn't. Our mixed economy has parts of socialism and capitalism. Many of the Western European nations are far more socialist than we are. So you can't say they use our system.
fidosim
Most all communist nations convert to "free market friendly" system eventually, I believe Communism isn't a sustainable system, but rather a stepping stone from no solid economic system to a certain degree of capitalism. Look at Russia and China.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It's not necessarily extreme to promote the interests of your country over other countries - it does become extreme when one goes to extreme lengths to do so. Tens of thousands of civilians have died because of the war in Afghanistan, and about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. If you feel as if they died for the interests of the U.S., that's fine, but you'd have to accept that such a mindset is nationalism taken to the extreme. fidosimWould you then be willing to call FDR an ultranationalist? At the outbreak of the war in Europe, and at the ongoing Sino-Japanese War, he was appalled that people were being "ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air". Yet once we entered the war, countless civilians had to die before the regimes we were fighting could be broken. Not really. He was certainly a nationalist, but he wasn't really a ultranationalist. Had he still been alive after the war was over, he most likely would have oversaw the reconstruction of Europe. Had he been an ultranationalist he would have had aspirations of having puppet regimes all throughout Western Europe, making sure that they bend over for the interests of the U.S.
But traditionally, Communists saw Socialism as a stepping stone to achieving a classless, completely communal society. The reforms in Russia and China took place once it became apparent that they couldn't compete economically without the kind of enterprise that makes our system so great.Most all communist nations convert to "free market friendly" system eventually, I believe Communism isn't a sustainable system, but rather a stepping stone from no solid economic system to a certain degree of capitalism. Look at Russia and China.
Ace_WondersX
Not really. He was certainly a nationalist, but he wasn't really a ultranationalist. Had he still been alive after the war was over, he most likely would have oversaw the reconstruction of Europe. Had he been an ultranationalist he would have had aspirations of having puppet regimes all throughout Western Europe, making sure that they bend over for the interests of the U.S. -Sun_Tzu-But wasn't the reconstruction of Europe a means of ensuring that they would be valuable allies of the United States, and wouldn't be susceptible to takeover by fascist or communist regimes? By rebuilding Europe, we also helped ourselves and had our national interests in mind.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]But traditionally, Communists saw Socialism as a stepping stone to achieving a classless, completely communal society. The reforms in Russia and China took place once it became apparent that they couldn't compete economically without the kind of enterprise that makes our system so great.Most all communist nations convert to "free market friendly" system eventually, I believe Communism isn't a sustainable system, but rather a stepping stone from no solid economic system to a certain degree of capitalism. Look at Russia and China.
fidosim
I disagree that Russia and China converted due to some desire to compete the U.S., I see it from a microeconomic perspective. You take a nation with no economic system and there is no middle class, only the poor and wealthy. You institute socialist policies to create a middle class, but their is no way for the middle class to advance to the upper class in a strong socialist/communist system. The middle class will start to support capitalist policies for their own individual benefit. That's what happened in China and Russia.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]No, neoconservatism is not a nationalistic ideology. A powerful America is not the final aspiration for a neoconservatism, it is merely the vessel that is being used to promote the liberation of other countries. After all, neoconservatism is basically a very moderate form of Trotskyism - as Irving Kristol once said, a neoconservative is a liberal who has been "mugged by reality". It's a very progressive ideology. fidosimIt has a pretty broad definition. The only real universal definition of a Neo-Conservative is someone that wants to export American democratic values to other countries. It isn't a stretch to say that doing that would in turn provide allies for the United States, or that exporting our system to other countries would in turn boost our political position. It's cool having you call me a progressive though. No, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that it could lead to those things, but for the neoconservative, that would not be the motivation of liberating. Moreover, a neoconservative isn't really someone who wants to export "American democratic values", but rather democratic values in general. It's not about making other countries America-lites.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Not really. He was certainly a nationalist, but he wasn't really a ultranationalist. Had he still been alive after the war was over, he most likely would have oversaw the reconstruction of Europe. Had he been an ultranationalist he would have had aspirations of having puppet regimes all throughout Western Europe, making sure that they bend over for the interests of the U.S. fidosimBut wasn't the reconstruction of Europe a means of ensuring that they would be valuable allies of the United States, and wouldn't be susceptible to takeover by fascist or communist regimes? By rebuilding Europe, we also helped ourselves and had our national interests in mind. We did have our national interests in mind, but we also allowed Europe to keep its autonomy. Had the U.S. been fascistic after WWII, yeah we probably would have rebuilt Europe, but we would have implemented regimes that bowed down to their overlords west of the Atlantic. That would have been pursuing national interests to the extreme; i.e. ultranationalism/fascism.
I disagree that Russia and China converted due to some desire to compete the U.S., I see it from a microeconomic perspective. You take a nation with no economic system and their is no middle class, only the poor and wealthy. You institute socialist policies to create a middle class, but their is no way for the middle class to advance to the upper class in a strong socialist/communist system. The middle class will start to support capitalist policies for their own individual benefit. That's what happened in China and Russia.
Folks will always work for their own individual benefit, but I think at the state level free market reforms make sense as well. China's emergence as the preeminent economic power is largely tied to its adoption of free market principles and its "opening" to economic cooperation with the west. It had benefits for India, the world's largest democracy, as well.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment