 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Basically, the economic interests of Britain got intertwined with those of America. Between 1900 and 1939, America increasingly became an important investing force in British colonies, surpassing Britain itself in some.
When Britain (and France, Netherlands) could not hold their colonies anymore, somehow America had to protect their economic interests (and those of its allies, if Marshall was to work), out of fear that nationalist movements would install communism. This is what I define as neo-imperialism, the large scale trade of weapons and funding of affiliated right-wing military guerillas. |
Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Thanks Spiffor.
And, you can take it to the bank, what I am saying is what many Americans are saying and feeling. There is a huge anti-French and anti-European opinion here mainly because of the fallout from Iraq.
It is one thing to disagree with a course of action. It is another to openly oppose American policy under circumstances where we have declared our vital national interests to be at stake -- even if Europe disagrees that they are.
It is one thing to disagree with policies of an American president. It is another to ridicule him.
We assume that Europe and France are on the side of peace, stability and democracy. We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet. But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible. There is little doubt that had France gotten its way from 1990 on, that Saddam Hussein would have been in power today, not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably in Saudi Arabia and the entire Persian Gulf. Tell me I'm wrong about this. Tell me how this dictatorial madman was a benefit to mankind. Explain to me why eliminating his regime was not good for the world. |
You're wrong, Ned.
The thing about Saddam is pure bullshit. We had a huge "coalition of the willing", which INCLUDED France and Germany, when we went into Kuwait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I was filing it under flights of fancy while I hit the submit button, but... the possibility exists that they will become unwilling to send troops outside of the hemisphere for any reason at all. If that happens there is then a large vacuum. Someone will fill that vacuum. Will they be better or worse than the Yanks? |
I'd say the possibility of that is so remote as to not even be worth considering.
But, to play along for just a little while:
If that came to pass, I doubt it would be a sudden, radical shift. The US would slowly wind down and make it clear that they no longer intended to get involved outside of their hemisphere (it just sounds extremely odd to even say that). At that point, I think it's more than likely that Europe as a whole or individual countries would start to ramp up their militaries. Like it or not, Europe can free ride on the US right now to a point simply because just about anything that is of a really compelling interest for the US is very likely to be of interest for Europe as well, and vice versa. Which really gets us back to where we were in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.
It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm. |
You're point being? Saddam was given a strict deadline to move out or else. Not a single shot was fired until that deadline passed. In the meantime, every major party, including the US, tried to use diplomatic means to avert a war. They didn't work, so everyone went in swinging, including, as you say, France.
You're just inventing an issue here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism? |
Yes, but in a much lesser scale - I had a huge debate on this with Imran two weeks ago.
Basically, the USSR filled - or tried to - natural vacuums, i.e. Eastern Europe and Northeastern Asia (Korea, Manchukuo).
Their main goal was to improve their economy and stability in their own sphere of influence, which was continental. OTOH, the goal of America was to protect the West's sphere of influence, which was pretty much the rest of the world, given its colonial past.
Which means that for prestige issues, the USSR did help some communist guerillas (like in Angola) or managed some oddball invasions (Afghanistan), but never as massively as America, with their intervention in Vietnam, and their absolute control over South America.
Simply said, the West had everything to lose from national communist movements, while the USSR could only gain some 'bonus points' from it. In turn, it explains why America was much more competent in defending its own vital interests, than was the USSR in 'possibly' dismantling them (which were not as important for their survival).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How could North Korea then? I mean, it isn't as impossible as you believe. |
Yeah, that's a good question. North Korea has been undergoing research for a much longer time, and it probably has received help from either the Soviet Union or China, or maybe even unofficially from Pakistan.
Still, I higly doubt that American intelligence didn't know that North Korea was undergoing research- it was merely letting it go, for obvious reasons. First, I doubt that China would be terribly benevolent towards the idea of an invasion of North Korea. Then, North Korea just doesn't have oil and can't possibly be linked with terrorism to justify a war. Last, America needs Japan's alliance, and that means keeping the Korean menace alive.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Why?
How does Bush-bashing affect transatlantic relations? An alliance is supposed to be deep enough to withstand the ephemeral heads of State. Bush-bashing in the public opinion, as well as Chirac bashing in the American public opinion, is definitely no reason for diplomats not to work efficiently. |
It's a bit different when the Bush or Chirac bashing comes from MPs or other people associated with government. Then it becomes divisive for alliances. The Tory **** who was quoted as saying that Bush's manner of expressing himself put Tories off, because he sounded like a Texan, would piss off a large number of Americans and people in American government, should it not? Would they not be correct to think that Europe could go and fvck themselves if the manner of expression of the person they chose to be a leader caused so much of a problem?
We had the same **** happening here. Early in the process leading up to Iraq several people connected with government were caught out saying things to the effect of Bush being a moron. It did not help relations with the US. Do you think it would?
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
America wouldn't WANT to do that. That would mean giving up what is essentially our hegemony forever. If someone fills that void, it would suck more for us in the long run. |
If Russia, China, and India are willing to trade, who cares whose soldiers stand guard? Why should American blood continue to be spilt all around the world if the vital interest, trade, is agreed to by capitalists in Moscow, Beijing, and Delhi?
There was a reason that America had to stay involved outside of the hemisphere after 1945. That reason has been extinguished with the defeat of the Soviet system. Continued involvement might be simply a reflex.
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Just using the term "Manifest Destiny" without explanation, however, will lead an American who knows his history to think of its historical use: the justification for westward expansion.
-Arrian |
Strange. To a non-American it will ring of the warning to others (Europe) to keep out. It might also make Canadians harken back to days of weenie roasts in Washington when your politicians tried to practice it in regard to BNA. 
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Believe me, OB, if Nazi Germany today invaded France, there would be no way in hell that Congress would declare war on Germany. |
Bullshit! |
Why? they didn't the first time around.
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
I'd say the possibility of that is so remote as to not even be worth considering.
But, to play along for just a little while:
If that came to pass, I doubt it would be a sudden, radical shift. The US would slowly wind down and make it clear that they no longer intended to get involved outside of their hemisphere (it just sounds extremely odd to even say that). At that point, I think it's more than likely that Europe as a whole or individual countries would start to ramp up their militaries. Like it or not, Europe can free ride on the US right now to a point simply because just about anything that is of a really compelling interest for the US is very likely to be of interest for Europe as well, and vice versa. Which really gets us back to where we were in the first place. |
i think you are mistaken on a few points.
First, all that has to happen is that enough American boys fill enough body bags, and some pol comes along and says that it doesn't have to be that way. He or she could win.
Then you could see the US out of Europe, the ME and everywhere else outside of the Western Hemisphere in very short order. What requires them to stay?
Second, that radical shift would be just that. It would be the result of a single election if accompanied by support in Congress. What stops the first and second cases from happening are elections and the will of the American people. However, for how much longer will they want to bleed in the face of foreign powers who are quite happy to trade? This is not 1964, we are no longer involved in a struggle with an ideological antithisis for life or death of our way of life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Actually that is no longer true. Most of the Arab world has reached record highs in poverty and oil is not the amvrosia it was for their economies in the '60s.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-03-2004 06:55
Yes, because we've usually just given away nuclear secrets to all of our allies. I'm sure Iraq during the 80s would have loved to hear that, instead of secretly getting info.
|