American Superiority is Good for the World

SpAcEd OuT

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

peasant

Give it another 20 years or so and it will be Chinese superiority ... we'll see if that's better or worse.

wes

No, American superiority is bad. Just ask an Iraqi who has had to sell themselves into prostitution or fled there homes (also lets not forget the US/UK shameful attitude to Iraqi refugee's, even the ones who worked for them), the sheer incompetence of there adventure there is pretty telling.

Of course no single nation should have supremacy and therein lies the real problem. Any other nation in the same position would be a similar disaster, if not a lot worse. So as much as possible, the world need to make sure that no single nation gains the supremacy over the rest.

SpAcEd OuT

wes wrote: »

Of course no single nation should have supremacy and therein lies the real problem. Any other nation in the same position would be a similar disaster, if not a lot worse. So as much as possible, the world need to make sure that no single nation gains the supremacy over the rest.

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes. What would stop countries like China invading Taiwan etc. You need one superpower that everyone listens to in order to keep order and to decide what is acceptable and what is not. The League of Nations never worked because countries could never fully agree on whether firstly a countries behavior was acceptable or not and secondly what action to take against said country this led to conflict and instability.

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

wes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

I disagree, the US government has shown itself to be completely incompetent. They have destroyed countless Iraqi lives due to there illegal invasion. The sheer incompetence of it all is especially frightening. See the US doesn't care about the rest of us, they care about themselves. They have no problem supporting despots, destroying democracy etc when it suits them. They don't do things to benefit anyone but themselves (just like everyone btw).

Some people disagree with the Americans, and they are destroyed. If you decided you nationalize your oil for example, like Iran tried to do in the 1950's, your democratically elected government is over thrown and the Americans make up some crap about communists etc. The Shah who they put in power murdered and tortured 1000's for decades, with Americas blessing and help. All because they wanted cheap oil. Did these Iranians who wanted democracy (it wasn't all "mad mullahs" the shah tortured, but a lot of pro-democracy advocates) deserved to be tortured and murdered in the most gruesome fashion? It should be noted the Shahs mens received CIA training. I am sure the people tortured appreciate the US a whole lot.

See what it boils down to is that the victims of American aggressions are somehow lesser to those of us in the west. Whatever made up reason the US comes up with, to justify there crimes are lapped up by far to many people, or those who know whats going on, use the excuse that it was for the "greater good" or some other rubbish like that. Its about the money, always has been.

The US ignores international law (even some laws that they helped come up with) if and when its suits them. You talk about them making the world a better place, your right a better place for those of us in the West. What about the Iraqis selling themselves into prostitution? Are these people better off? Seems to me, that US interference has made there lives far far worse. I guess there not from the West, so they don't matter at all. Or maybe there just a result of a "mistake", of course the US's actions in Iraq are no mistake. Its all about the oil, of course they managed to mess that one up too.

Of course, the American's do good things too, there action in the Balkans conflict, there highlighting of genocide in Darfur are too good examples. However, for every good thing they do, they do something wrong.

What it boils down is self interest for them. Just because "we" haven't suffered from US aggression doesn't mean there aren't people who haven't suffered greatly due to it.

Once again a multi polar world is better, it means no nation can act unilaterally. They don't have enough power to do so. It prevents any one nation having the power to do what they want regardless of the consequences.

astrofool

So, if you had to pick one other (viable) superpower to keep things in check, who would it be?

No point in turning this into another Iraq debate, I think everyone agree's they did stupid there, but would someone else have done better?

wes

astrofool wrote: »

So, if you had to pick one other (viable) superpower to keep things in check, who would it be?

No point in turning this into another Iraq debate, I think everyone agree's they did stupid there, but would someone else have done better?

I am talking about no super powers. Hence my comment on a multi polar world, where several nations have to join together to sort out a problem rather than unilateralism. Its not that the US is bad, its just that power corrupts. Any other nation in same position wouldn't be any better and could potentially be much worse.

Mr.Micro

Sooner or later America may bite off more than it can chew .What difference has it actually made ? technological yes along with Europe . Policing the world? No . Al Queda is stronger now and the divide with the West is even bigger . The Chinese and Russians will catch up yet .

mike65

The Russians will never catch up unless they stop killing themselves with bad diets and booze and start having children. The population of that benighted country is due to tumble to about 100 million in the next 40-50 years.

Mike.

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

America is the same as Russia, the same as China, the same as any other country, it takes care of its own self-interests first.

The Neocons believe in the spread of democracy through force if neccessary, yet their views and ideals of how to actually do this have been proved wrong over and over and over again.

monosharp

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

Not worth replying to. Pure utter trolling.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

being wrong and not knowing it are not the same as trolling, that's just being human.

leninbenjamin

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes.

wrong. if every nation has equal power there could never be an outright victor, so any conflict engaged in would be mutually destructive. So any conflict simply wouldn't happen. you're argument clearly isn't fully thought through.

Saruman

Well if we take Europe as the superstate it will eventually be then i think we might do a better job. It just seems to me that Europeans have their head screwed on a little better. We do not have the single military the US has, although i think combined we might have as much if not more personel and hardware. I have no real idea, im just assuming here since this is a hypothetical thread.

I do agree that there should be at least one superpower to keep certain countries in check. It would be far easier though if there was only one nation of earth

In theory though we do not need a country to be the superpower. We have the UN and they should be the ones to police the world. They just seem to lack the balls the US has.

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not

Ok, so following U.S. example, it is acceptable for a nation to
Torture
Sell and traffic drugs
Detain people without trial
Overthrow democratic governments
Bomb civilians
Break international treaties
Ignore the U.N.
Rig elections
Train terrorists
Harbour terrorists
Develop new nuclear technologies
Pollute the environment
Allow its own population to live in dire poverty
Wage resource wars
Assassinate political opponents
Genocide

and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

All of this is complete nonsense. The biggest threat to world peace is the U.S. and has been for the last 50 years. If america invades Iran then we'll be one step closer to world war 3, and it will have been completely the fault of the U.S.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

The U.N.

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

America decides what is best for America and imposes that will on everyone else (or more accurately, the American Elite decides what is best for its own narrow short term interests)

gandalf

monosharp wrote: »

Not worth replying to. Pure utter trolling.

If you believe its trolling report it don't comment mid thread ok.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes. What would stop countries like China invading Taiwan etc.

If every nation had equal power, then Taiwan having equal power with China would probably do it.

You need one superpower that everyone listens to in order to keep order and to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Its a bit like a country needs one supreme leader to make the rules and tell everyone else what they're allowed do. As with countries, its a bad idea for this leader to be chosen by the will of others...whoever is strongest should take the position on the basis of "might is right".

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

It would be a bit like living under a dictatorship, really. When your wants and needs align with those of the dictator you serve under, there's no problems....as long as you're willing to ignore what happens to those who's wants and needs are not in alignment.

SpAcEd OuT

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad. The problem is you can't see the good I mean who knows how many countless lives it has saved by preventing major conflicts from occurring. World Stability is priority and as Robert McNamara once said in order to good you must sometimes do evil. if America are indirectly responsible for the deaths of people but in doing so has been responsible for saving 10 times as many people then surely thats a good thing. It would be ideal if there didn't have to be any killing but this is the real world and sometimes you have to make those sacrifices for the greater good.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

Akrasia wrote: »

All of this is complete nonsense. The biggest threat to world peace is the U.S. and has been for the last 50 years. If america invades Iran then we'll be one step closer to world war 3, and it will have been completely the fault of the U.S.

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME. Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.'' Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would. Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

Akrasia wrote: »

America decides what is best for America and imposes that will on everyone else (or more accurately, the American Elite decides what is best for its own narrow short term interests)

Yes because an invasion of Afghanistan benefited America greatly. America does what it deems best for world stability. You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan, North Korea would be invading South Korea, Iran,Syria,Egypt and Jordan would be attacking Israel. Libya would have Nuclear weapons. Slobodan Milosevic would probably still be in power and a threat to Europe etc. America has been pivotal in keeping a major conflict from occurring and saving millions of lives.

SpAcEd OuT

leninbenjamin wrote: »

wrong. if every nation has equal power there could never be an outright victor, so any conflict engaged in would be mutually destructive. So any conflict simply wouldn't happen. you're argument clearly isn't fully thought through.

In any conflict there is always a victor. Do you not think that if Iran was as strong militarily as Israel that it wouldn't attack Israel. Of course it would. The only thing that is preventing Iran from attacking Israel is the strength of America and Israel. I'm sure that if China was on par with America that it would not hesitate to invade Taiwan the only thing preventing China from doing so is that it needs America economically. America's strength ensures that countries don't step out of line thus ensuring world order is kept. If countries were allowed to do as they wished then there would be major conflict. The UN wouldn't prevent this it is currently having trouble preventing a civilian conflict in a poor African country, how could it ever stop a strong nation from acting in an unacceptable fashion. As seen with the League of Nations in the run up to WW2 it simply doesn't work you need a superpower that everyone will listen to and obey.

SpAcEd OuT

Saruman wrote: »

Well if we take Europe as the superstate it will eventually be then i think we might do a better job. It just seems to me that Europeans have their head screwed on a little better. We do not have the single military the US has, although i think combined we might have as much if not more personel and hardware. I have no real idea, im just assuming here since this is a hypothetical thread.

If europe was one state under one ruler then yes but the problem is that like the UN it is made up of different states and as such they are hampered by their inability to agree on whether action is needed and in the case that action is needed what action to take before its too late. America has the power and the ability to act immediately when world stability is at risk.

Saruman wrote: »

I do agree that there should be at least one superpower to keep certain countries in check. It would be far easier though if there was only one nation of earth

Agree

Saruman wrote: »

In theory though we do not need a country to be the superpower. We have the UN and they should be the ones to police the world. They just seem to lack the balls the US has.

Exactly hence why we need the US.

Hobbes

jonny72 wrote: »

America is the same as Russia, the same as China, the same as any other country, it takes care of its own self-interests first.

QFT. Also America is already on its way out of being a superpower (they come and go). China is probably the next one to raise.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad.

Until you can point me to a definitive list I doubt that very much.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

So the rest of the world should be allowed to vote in US elections and determine the actions of the USA? I wouldn't accept that from my own government, why should I accept it from a foreign nation?

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME.

Hmm, what would your reaction be if Iran had nuclear weapons and was also funding various opposing countries in the middle east with insane weapons budgets, meanwhile occupying a different country and raping its assets? Would you agree that Iran is bad then? Or good?

You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan,

But America has no problem agreeing to China in not declaring Taiwan as a country. Seriously, its part of Chinas import/export laws which US companies obey or risk looking money.

As mentioned, China owns most of Americas debt. I don't know where you get this "China needs America". If China was to call in the debt or dump the $ it would be a nightmare for the US.

North Korea would be invading South Korea

I think is America pulled out of SK tomorrow NK still would not invade. It isn't the same country since the Korean war.

Libya would have Nuclear weapons.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libya is a friendly country now.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan, North Korea would be invading South Korea, Iran,Syria,Egypt and Jordan would be attacking Israel. Libya would have Nuclear weapons. Slobodan Milosevic would probably still be in power and a threat to Europe etc.

<looks at own sig>

No...I wasn't aware of that. Amazingly, even though you've just told me all of that, I'm still not aware of it.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to the notion that if things were different, things would be different. You couple this with some sort of admission that from your perspective, different could only mean worse....and that's about the limit of things.

So basically, you like the world the say it is, and think that any way it could be different would mean it was worse. Thus, its a good thing that its not different (and thus worse).

Am I missing anything relevant to your position?

MeatProduct

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.''

Where did you get that quote from Spaced Out? I assume you didn't research it and realise he never said that? It was a convenient bad translation that propagated through the media. He wants regime change. View the following link to find the correct translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel It goes to show why you can't trust the media, it's the most powerful tool for propaganda. It is, of course, understandable that you would trust the media for accurate reporting but, unfortunately, those days are long gone if, indeed, we ever had them at all.

As regards having one super power that will never be a good idea. America is evidence to that today. You can look at all aspects of life to see abuse of authority, from the school bully through to political leaders. Once someone has power over others there is a temptation to abuse that power. It would take a very stable person who has overcome their desire for power and dominance to hide their insecurities to not be affected when in a position of authority. In my life I have only met one such person.

It really doesn't matter what country is the super power, there will be abuse of that power. If Ireland were that super power it probably wouldn't be much better than the US. But, as I've said before, the problem is not them the problem is us. The change needs to come from within.

Nick

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME. Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.'' Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would. Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

Wow...

Replace the n in Iran with a q, and this post could be mistaken for one thats about 5 years old.

Tell me...are Iran doing "everything in their power" in the same way Iraq weren't, or is there actual evidence this time round?

MeatProduct

Spaced Out, have you read the book 1984? It may well help you see some parallels to the current situation.

Nick

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad. The problem is you can't see the good I mean who knows how many countless lives it has saved by preventing major conflicts from occurring.

Which conflicts would those be?

World Stability is priority and as Robert McNamara once said in order to good you must sometimes do evil. if America are indirectly responsible for the deaths of people but in doing so has been responsible for saving 10 times as many people then surely thats a good thing.

That point is debatable ethically, but your assertion that U.S. intervention saves lives has no basis. After 9/11, and attack which killed 3000 people, America Invaded Afghanistan and Iraq killing more than a million people.
In the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, the worst violence only started After the NATO bombing campaign began

In Vietnam, millions and millions of people died to defend U.S. hegemony. (not just in Vietnam, but also in Cambodia and Laos. The U.S. campaign in cambodia paved the way for Pol Pot)

The U.S. opposition to the overthrow of their puppet regime in Iran led to the Iran Iraq war that cost millions more lives.

In fact, the 20th century was by far the most violent century in the history of man kind. Most of the people who were victims of this violence never appear on any of your Neo Con propaganda websites

It would be ideal if there didn't have to be any killing but this is the real world and sometimes you have to make those sacrifices for the greater good.

the greater good has nothing to do with the sacrifices that other people are expected to make. It's all about furthering U.S. interests.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

By starting and continuing a nuclear arms race with the potential to destroy all of civilisation in a matter of hours? America has by far the largest nuclear arsenal of any country in the world and is by far the most militarily aggressive nation in the world. Bush has threatened to use nukes against Iran and Iraq. How on earth is that protecting the world from destruction?
5,000,000 children under 5 die every year around the world because they do not have access to clean water, that's a fully loaded jumbo jet crashing every 35 minutes, every day, every year. Meanwhile the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons that it uses to keep itself rich and keep the poor starving. That money could feed the world and still have plenty left over for an adequate defence force to protect americans from external enemies (and there would be fewer enemies if the U.S. was a positive influence in the world, and not a violent imperialist dictator)

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME.

Just like Saddam was doing everything in his power to get WMD? Give me a break. It's like watching a bad re-run on television. The same nonsense arguments that all sane people realise now were lies before the Iraq war are being trotted out again by the same people

Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.''

He never said that and he isn't in charge of the military. What he did say was that he wanted to see regime change in Israel. I know someone else who demands regime change in the middle east, except this guy is the commander of a military and does have nuclear weapons that he has threatened to use, and he is highly unstable. His name is George W Bush.

Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would.

How does that make sense? First of all, Iran doesn't have Nukes, secondly, Bush has already threatened WW3 if Iran doesn't comply with its demands (demands that are impossible to meet, just like the demands on saddam were impossible to meet)

Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

there were much more complicated reasons for WW2 than that

Yes because an invasion of Afghanistan benefited America greatly.

It benefited some people greately, the Arms companies, the the Oil companies and the war profiteers. (in other words, the republican base)
Saudi Arabia was much more culpable for 9/11 than Afghanistan, but the Saudis are in bed with the Yankees, so they're immune

America does what it deems best for world stability. You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan,

If China wanted to invade Taiwan, do you really think the U.S. would go to war to stop it?

SpAcEd OuT

MeatProduct wrote: »

Where did you get that quote from Spaced Out? I assume you didn't research it and realise he never said that? It was a convenient bad translation that propagated through the media. He wants regime change. View the following link to find the correct translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel It goes to show why you can't trust the media, it's the most powerful tool for propaganda. It is, of course, understandable that you would trust the media for accurate reporting but, unfortunately, those days are long gone if, indeed, we ever had them at all.

Lets look at the actual translation

''The regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time''

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist. The fact that he used the word must instead of should shows a degree of intention and as such can be deemed as a direct threat towards Israel. The sentence 'Wiping Israel off the map'' might have been a bit strong but essentially he said the same thing, he believes Israel must vanish from time

And by the way that quote was mistranslated not by Western media but by Iran's own media.

MeatProduct

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist.

No, he's not. If he wanted to say that then he could have used "Isreal" instead of "regime". We see what we want to see. The West wants to see provocation for war and so sees it.

Nick

leninbenjamin

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

In any conflict there is always a victor. Do you not think that if Iran was as strong militarily as Israel that it wouldn't attack Israel. Of course it would. The only thing that is preventing Iran from attacking Israel is the strength of America and Israel. I'm sure that if China was on par with America that it would not hesitate to invade Taiwan the only thing preventing China from doing so is that it needs America economically. America's strength ensures that countries don't step out of line thus ensuring world order is kept. If countries were allowed to do as they wished then there would be major conflict. The UN wouldn't prevent this it is currently having trouble preventing a civilian conflict in a poor African country, how could it ever stop a strong nation from acting in an unacceptable fashion. As seen with the League of Nations in the run up to WW2 it simply doesn't work you need a superpower that everyone will listen to and obey.

there are three words that illustrate why the logic in that post is so flawed. "the Cold War".

SpAcEd OuT

Hobbes wrote: »

Until you can point me to a definitive list I doubt that very much.

Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes. Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide. The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations. The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia.

In regards to further back than 15 years you have the complete rebuilding of Europe after WW2, Defeating Japan, stopping the spread of communism etc.


In a general sense you have it's role in peacekeeping, it's role in donating to charities [Include the amount they give to NGOs, Countrie's Govts. etc. and you will see that per capita they are the biggest donaters],preventing conflicts from occurring that would result in the loss of millions of lives etc.

Hobbes wrote: »

Hmm, what would your reaction be if Iran had nuclear weapons and was also funding various opposing countries in the middle east with insane weapons budgets, meanwhile occupying a different country and raping its assets? Would you agree that Iran is bad then? Or good?

Firstly America are a stable enough country to have nuclear weapons [Yes they've used them before but in doing so they saved tens of millions of lives, but thats a different debate]

America are funding countries to ensure stability in the ME and the countries survival [Israel would not exist if it wasn't for America's funding]

America are occupying another country [with the intention to leave as soon as order is restored] that was before ruled by a dictator who had gassed his own people, waged wars on states and was a general threat to the whole ME.

As for raping Iraq's assets if your talking about oil America, despite the occupation of Iraq, still does not control Iraq's oil, that is a popular myth.

Hobbes wrote: »

But America has no problem agreeing to China in not declaring Taiwan as a country. Seriously, its part of Chinas import/export laws which US companies obey or risk looking money.

Seems almost insignificant considering the US has ensured that China doesn't invade Taiwan.

Hobbes wrote: »

As mentioned, China owns most of Americas debt. I don't know where you get this "China needs America". If China was to call in the debt or dump the $ it would be a nightmare for the US.

America's economy is actually stronger than China's. If America was to impose trade sanctions on China, whilst being costly for both it would be considerably more costly for China.

Hobbes wrote: »

I think is America pulled out of SK tomorrow NK still would not invade. It isn't the same country since the Korean war.

Completely disagree.

Hobbes wrote: »

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libya is a friendly country now.

Thanks to America.

SpAcEd OuT

leninbenjamin wrote: »

there are three words that illustrate why the logic in that post is so flawed. "the Cold War".

Eh America won the cold war last time I checked the USSR collapsed.

leninbenjamin

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Eh America won the cold war last time I checked the USSR collapsed.

America won nothing. the USSR collapsed due to investment in flawed economic policy, it had nothing to do with the actions of America and it's military etc.

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Lets look at the actual translation

''The regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time''

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist. The fact that he used the word must instead of should shows a degree of intention and as such can be deemed as a direct threat towards Israel. The sentence 'Wiping Israel off the map'' might have been a bit strong but essentially he said the same thing, he believes Israel must vanish from time

And by the way that quote was mistranslated not by Western media but by Iran's own media.

Neoconservatism allows a democratic country to wage illegal strategic/resource wars using propaganda/lies/public fears/etc. Here's an example: Iraq.


Its a scam, just like Scientology.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Lets look at the actual translation

Lets do that.

''The regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time''

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist. The fact that he used the word must instead of should shows a degree of intention and as such can be deemed as a direct threat towards Israel.

Hang on...I thought you wanted to look at the actual translation.

The first four words are......the regime occupying Jerusalem, and not "the nation of Israel".

Consider the rhetoric regarding regime change in Iraq which was prevalent about 5 years ago. Was the Bush Administration saying that Iraq had to cease to exist as a nation? Was Dubya threatening the existence of Iraq as a country? Was he threatening the existence of Iraqis as people?

This similarity in language is no coincidence. Regimes the world over have adopted the language of the Bush administration. They have done so precisely because they have recognised a key weakness in the pro-American rhetoric that you are espousing here.

On one hand, you want us to believe that language calling for regime change is inherently threatening and wrong. On the other hand, its the language of an Administration you are saying are inherently a force for Good in the world.

Going further, of the people using this rhetoric only one has notably acted on it - that being your alleged force for Good....but you want us to believe that the threat from these other nations is that they will act on their rhetoric!!!

but essentially he said the same thing, he believes Israel must vanish from time

I'm really interested in your argument as to why the destruction of Iraq is a good thing.

If you're not saying that, then you've got a problem. Whatever way you interpret things, you'll ultimately end up making the case that its 'good' for the US to do certain things, but 'bad' for others to do the same. In short, you'll make your argument circular.

JC 2K3

The flaw in your logic, SpAcEd OuT, is that you assume that the US is and always will be 100% benevolent and will always act in the interest of preserving world stability.

purple'n'gold

“If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME. Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as its leader is unstable”

The Middle East is unstable, it was destabilized by the United States though its proxy, Israel. And unfortunately GWB is probably the most volatile and unstable leader that the US has ever had. Thank god he will be gone next year, anyone will be better than him and that unspeakable reprobate Cheney.

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes.

As opposed to India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel?, All of whom are unstable and likely to use them (especially Pakistan)

In a world without America Saddam Hussein would never have gotten into power in the first place, and The Iranian revolution would never have happened (there would have been no shah to overthrow)
America has done a huge amount to spread Islamic Fundamentalism from back when they were using islamic extremists as a proxy force to fight the Russians.

Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide.

Um, afghanistan is a 7th century islamic fundamentalist state. The U.S. have failed completely to bring 'freedom and democracy' to afghanistan. And again, much of that fundamentalism was promoted and fostered by the U.S. when they supported the taliban in their fight against the soviet uniion.

The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations.

Yeah right.

The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia.

nobody knows what Cuba would look like today if it wasn't for the U.S. sanctions and economic warfare against the cubans for the last half a century. If America did not exist, Cuba might still be a Spanish colony and Castro might never have come to power.

In a general sense you have it's role in peacekeeping, it's role in donating to charities [Include the amount they give to NGOs, Countrie's Govts. etc. and you will see that per capita they are the biggest donaters],preventing conflicts from occurring that would result in the loss of millions of lives etc.

The U.S. gives far far more in military aid than it gives in development aid. And of that military aid, a huge proportion goes to a small number of countries, including the despotic dictatorship, Saudi Arabia. It is certain that the U.S. aid programs abroad have done more harm than good. (A lot of their aid is directed through institutions like the IMF and World Bank which have devastated the 'developing world') Most U.S. aid comes with strings attached, and most of those strings are attached to wallets of bankers and industrialists in the U.S.

Firstly America are a stable enough country to have nuclear weapons [Yes they've used them before but in doing so they saved tens of millions of lives, but thats a different debate]

Rubbish. The use of Nukes in WW2 was totally unnecessary, the historical record demonstrates this completely. The Japanese were prepared to enter surrender talks before either of the bombs were deployed. And there was certainly no need to bomb them twice. It was a horrific war crime.
Also, the U.S. have demonstrated since then that they are not responsible members of the international community and are not stable enough to hold nuclear weapons. The Cuban Missile crisis is commonly portrayed as a threat by the russians against the U.S, but by an objective standpoint, the U.S. were provoking the Russians by placing their own silos on the Russian border far before the Russians ever went near Cuba. The world was minutes away from total destruction because of the arrogance of the U.S. and their refusal to step down, not even an inch. In the end, the Russians backed down, the U.S. kept their weapons where they were.

And further, the U.S. continue to provoke tension by their insistence on building missile shields, abandoning treaties and announcing plans to militarise space.
They are also developing "tactical" nuclear 'bunker buster' weapons which they intend to use as first strike weapons.

Your claim is utterly meaningless.

America are occupying another country [with the intention to leave as soon as order is restored] that was before ruled by a dictator who had gassed his own people, waged wars on states and was a general threat to the whole ME.

That dictator was supported by America during that period, America defended his atrocities in the U.N. and continued to supply him weapons.

SpAcEd OuT

Akrasia wrote: »

Which conflicts would those be?

Although I have already posted them I have included some of them in my next point again.

Akrasia wrote: »

That point is debatable ethically, but your assertion that U.S. intervention saves lives has no basis. After 9/11, and attack which killed 3000 people, America Invaded Afghanistan and Iraq killing more than a million people.
In the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, the worst violence only started After the NATO bombing campaign began

In Vietnam, millions and millions of people died to defend U.S. hegemony. (not just in Vietnam, but also in Cambodia and Laos. The U.S. campaign in cambodia paved the way for Pol Pot)

The U.S. opposition to the overthrow of their puppet regime in Iran led to the Iran Iraq war that cost millions more lives.

In fact, the 20th century was by far the most violent century in the history of man kind. Most of the people who were victims of this violence never appear on any of your Neo Con propaganda websites

I have already admitted the US had made mistakes [Though it did so with the intention of doing good] but the problem is you can't see the millions upon millions of people the US has saved by stamping its authority and ensuring major conflicts don't occur. Imagine how costly a N.Korean invasion of S.Korea would be, or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or an unobstructed Facist Japan, or a complete genocide in the Balkans, or a Pakistani Indian war etc.

America has ensured none of this ever happened saving millions of lives.

Akrasia wrote: »

By starting and continuing a nuclear arms race with the potential to destroy all of civilisation in a matter of hours?

By building the nuclear bomb they ensured that hundreds of millions survived. Could you imagine the death toll if America was forced to get involved in a full scale war with Japan. Or if Russia and America went to war. It is not even worth thinking about. Nuclear weapons ensured this didn't happen. They prevented war and saved lives [See M.A.D]

Akrasia wrote: »

Bush has threatened to use nukes against Iran and Iraq. How on earth is that protecting the world from destruction?

He threatened to use tactical nukes there is a massive difference you are trying to imply he was threatening to nuke them and that simply isn't the case.

Akrasia wrote: »

5,000,000 children under 5 die every year around the world because they do not have access to clean water, that's a fully loaded jumbo jet crashing every 35 minutes, every day, every year. Meanwhile the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons that it uses to keep itself rich and keep the poor starving. That money could feed the world and still have plenty left over for an adequate defence force to protect americans from external enemies (and there would be fewer enemies if the U.S. was a positive influence in the world, and not a violent imperialist dictator)

America donates more to charity than any other nation. If you were to include the amount they give to NGOs and other avenues then per capita they donate more than anyone else [this isn't included]. Do you see any other countries that are donating more or even as much as the US to other charities, Not a chance.

Akrasia wrote: »

Just like Saddam was doing everything in his power to get WMD? Give me a break. It's like watching a bad re-run on television. The same nonsense arguments that all sane people realise now were lies before the Iraq war are being trotted out again by the same people

According to the Pakistani scientist responsible for creating Pakistan's nuclear bomb and for trading nuclear and biological weapon know how for money, yes, yes he was.

Oh and by the way he used WMDs against his own people in case you forgot.

Akrasia wrote: »

He never said that and he isn't in charge of the military. What he did say was that he wanted to see regime change in Israel. I know someone else who demands regime change in the middle east, except this guy is the commander of a military and does have nuclear weapons that he has threatened to use, and he is highly unstable. His name is George W Bush.

Firstly he didn't say regime change he said the Israeli Regime must not be allowed to exist he is basically implying that a Jewish Israeli government must not be allowed to be in power. that is a threat.

Akrasia wrote: »

How does that make sense? First of all, Iran doesn't have Nukes, secondly, Bush has already threatened WW3 if Iran doesn't comply with its demands (demands that are impossible to meet, just like the demands on saddam were impossible to meet)

Iran is doing everything in it's power to get nukes. And the demands are impossible to meet It's simple stop enriching uranium

Akrasia wrote: »

there were much more complicated reasons for WW2 than that

The reasons for the cause of WW2 are one thing the reasons for how it was allowed to happen is another.

Akrasia wrote: »

Saudi Arabia was much more culpable for 9/11 than Afghanistan, but the Saudis are in bed with the Yankees, so they're immune

Em the Saudi Arabian royal family weren't funding and training the terrorists responsible and certainly weren't allowing the mastermind behind 9/11 to hide within their country.

Akrasia wrote: »

If China wanted to invade Taiwan, do you really think the U.S. would go to war to stop it?

Sanctions. Right now China need America more than America need china for reasons stated in my previous post.

Akrasia

Oh, and to claim that the Chinese would be more beligerent than the U.S. China have 20 nuclear weapons (and they're not on hair trigger alert, they are purely a deterrent to be used in a retaliatory attack should someone think about attacking them),
America has 3000. What does America do? It builds a 'missile shield' that is designed to shoot down 20 nuclear weapons coming from the pacific. That is nothing short of a direct provokation of the Chinese. The reason there hasn't been a nuclear war is because of the principle of MAD, and America are unilaterally dismantling that principle and the only possible consequence of this will be a new arms race and a new nuclear missile crisis.

Now the chinese will be forced to increase their nuclear stockpile, and that will be used as propaganda by the U.S. to 'prove' that the chinese can't be trusted.

America are by far the most destabilising force in the world.

Hobbes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes.

Imagine a world with tangerine trees and marshmallow skies.

How can you possibly know that for a fact? If there was no America then Iran for example would still be a democratic country and not the one created after America attempted a coup backed by the CIA.

For that matter Saddam may not of come to power because he wasn't backed and trained by the USA.

Iran/Iraq war may never of happened as Iran wouldn't of had the weapons supplied by the USA.

As for Libya, you keep going on about them but they are now the "good guys". Seriously. When it is in the wests interests who was bad yesterday is now good.

Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven

Or not. If your going to remove America for a what-if you need to add all variables.

Although if America didn't exist, OBL wouldn't of been trained by the CIA during the Afgan war with Russia. He also wouldn't of attacked because US bases were no longer in Saudi Arabia.

Incidently Noriega was put into power with the Help of the US. So was Saddam. Khaddafi is now a friend to the west.

The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America.

Fidel came into power by a revolution to throw out America (mainly Mafia controlled interests) from Cuba. Without America as you claim that would never of happened.

As for WW2, USA helped, however Germany was already hurting fighting Russia, if anything they sped up the end of the war.

Firstly America are a stable enough country to have nuclear weapons

Define stable? Lets say a country that declares they will use nukes on the battlefield. Would you call them stable?

America are funding countries to ensure stability in the ME and the countries survival

Iran rebels, Iraq Saddam times, Saudi Arabia at the moment. Most of the instability in the middle east can be traced back to the USA messing around in the affairs of other countries.

that was before ruled by a dictator who had gassed his own people, waged wars on states and was a general threat to the whole ME.

Actually he gassed Kurds who he didn't consider his own people. But the bigger question is who supplied him those weapons to begin with. 3 guesses?

As for raping Iraq's assets if your talking about oil America, despite the occupation of Iraq, still does not control Iraq's oil, that is a popular myth.

Well for starters USA was in debt to Iraq prior to the war as they bought up loads of oil. Then when they invaded they took over the office where the accounts were kept and destroyed it.

But no, I am not talking about oil. I would explain, but I am beginning to suspect your just trolling at this stage. Even so you should bother to do some research into what goes on in Iraq. I suggest by reading up in detail as to what the new constitution does.

Seems almost insignificant considering the US has ensured that China doesn't invade Taiwan.

If China went into Taiwan, America would do absolutely fuk all. For starters they are in debt to China. If they started the war and China called in its debts the $ would tank. All the Chinese imports would stop flowing and Americans would find that they couldn't afford anything.

The only reason China hasn't moved is because it would hurt them economically.

America's economy is actually stronger than China's.

Are you really that naive? The US economy has been tanking since Bush first got into office. Chinas has only been growing.

If America was to impose trade sanctions on China, whilst being costly for both it would be considerably more costly for China.

Every electronic device in the world can trace a part in it back to China. 90% of the worlds toys are made there. Most of the clothes come from there. Even outsourcing in India goes to China to cut costs.

Completely disagree.

Well you would as you have no clue it seems. SK army would wipe the floor with NK. It isn't like the country that was attacked during the Korean war. Meanwhile NK has only man power as an advantage.

If your ever in Seoul I recommend you check out the War museum. Gives you a nice break down.

MeatProduct

Spaced Out, unhappy a situation as it is the world is not an ideal place. America does not have the worlds' interests at it's heart. It is an administration that is not driven by compassion. Sadly, some people have seen how rich and powerful they can get through war and actively seek to create those situations.

Of course to accept that the US administration is not a force of good is to accept that within each of us is a similar corruptability, a lack of moral fibre. So it is completely understandable why you would not want to accept the motives of the US administration. It is an optimism that is admirable but not founded in this world. With time it is inevitable that a cynicism will take hold.

Nick

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Although I have already posted them I have included some of them in my next point again.



I have already admitted the US had made mistakes [Though it did so with the intention of doing good] but the problem is you can't see the millions upon millions of people the US has saved by stamping its authority and ensuring major conflicts don't occur. Imagine how costly a N.Korean invasion of S.Korea would be

or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or an unobstructed Facist Japan, or a complete genocide in the Balkans, or a Pakistani Indian war etc.

America has ensured none of this ever happened saving millions of lives.

Nobody knows how costly those wars might have been, or even if they would have occured at all.
There is nothing to say that these conflicts would or would not have happened if things were different. If there were no superpowers or if different countries were in power. You could claim that the British empire saved lives in Africa by preventing warring tribes from attacking each other, thats what they claimed at the time, but they also did huge damage that lasted for generations.

By building the nuclear bomb they ensured that hundreds of millions survived. Could you imagine the death toll if America was forced to get involved in a full scale war with Japan.

It wouldn't have been hundreds of millions anyway. Japan was about to surrender before the two attacks against civilians

Or if Russia and America went to war. It is not even worth thinking about. Nuclear weapons ensured this didn't happen. They prevented war and saved lives [See M.A.D]

Russia and America did go to war. They did it in other people's back gardens because they put zero value in the lives of these poor brown and Asian people. The Cuban Missile Crisis almost destroyed the entire planet, and as I've already said, the U.S. has been dismantling MAD since the end of the cold war. If there was a Missile Shield at the time of the CMC there would have been less incentive for the Russians to pull back, and less fear from the U.S. of a Russian retaliation.

They don't want stability, they want complete dominance and hegemonic control, and that kind of power crazed meglomania could very well result in the destruction of human civilisation.

He threatened to use tactical nukes there is a massive difference you are trying to imply he was threatening to nuke them and that simply isn't the case.

There is no difference in the eyes of everyone in the world. A nuclear attack is a nuclear attack. Nuclear attacks are met with a nuclear response. If Anyone launched a 'dirty bomb' attack against a U.S. target, you can be assured that there would be a nuclear response against the aggressor (
or whoever's nearest if the aggressor is Saudi Arabia again)

America donates more to charity than any other nation. If you were to include the amount they give to NGOs and other avenues then per capita they donate more than anyone else [this isn't included]. Do you see any other countries that are donating more or even as much as the US to other charities, Not a chance.

American official development aid is 0.2% GNI. Norway donates 0.9% GNI and Ireland is in at just under 0.4% GNI (Gross National Income) A lot of this 'Development Aid' currently goes to Iraq to rebuild some of the things that the U.S. blew up during the invasion, and most of its overall aid is 'military aid' in the form of credits for Foreign governments to purchase American arms. (in otherwords, subsidies for the U.S. arms industry) The actual distribution of Aid is highly politicised and is tightly linked to economic 'reforms' that very often have long term damaging consequences for the aid recipients

According to the Pakistani scientist responsible for creating Pakistan's nuclear bomb and for trading nuclear and biological weapon know how for money, yes, yes he was.

Well he must have been pretty **** at it because he didn't have any. Or else.. the U.N. weapons inspections program was working and there was absolutely no need to go to war. He did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion, or any viable weapons programs.

Oh and by the way he used WMDs against his own people in case you forgot.

I'm getting sick of repeating myself. He used gas and nerve agents during the period when he was best friends with the U.S.

Firstly he didn't say regime change he said the Israeli Regime must not be allowed to exist he is basically implying that a Jewish Israeli government must not be allowed to be in power. that is a threat.

It was a speech, He voiced his opposition to zionism, which is, as you already acknowledge, a theocratic and apartheid regime. The Iranian president is in no position to make any threats, he does not have control over any of Irans military. The Iranians haven't started a war in living memory. The current regime just wants to be left alone. They are not interfering in Iraq, the vast majority of outside fighters in Iraq are American, the vast majority of foreign insurgents are from Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. are trying to manufacture a case for war, just like they manufactured a case against Iraq and Afghanistan

Iran is doing everything in it's power to get nukes. And the demands are impossible to meet It's simple stop enriching uranium

The demands have shifted, from stop enriching uranium as a precondition to talks (talks about what btw?) to Stop enriching Uranium, prove that you have no WMD programs, and Prove that you aren't involved in 'destabilising Iraq'.

America does things this way, it starts with a conclusion and then tells people to prove that the conclusion is false, and when the proof of a negative is incomplete, they take that as evidence that the original conclusion must be true. It is very simple propaganda, and effective only because the media goes along with it, and because many people have little grasp of logic.

The reasons for the cause of WW2 are one thing the reasons for how it was allowed to happen is another.

You mean appeasement? What else were they going to do? Invade Germany earlier? there still would have been a war. America was highly complimentary towards Hitler before the annexation of Poland. Hitler was their kind of guy. They didn't want to get involved in the war at all until they were attacked by Japan. I don't see your point about WW2 at all. America appeased hitler as much as everyone else, and left Europe to fight alone until the Japanese dragged them in.

Em the Saudi Arabian royal family weren't funding and training the terrorists responsible and certainly weren't allowing the mastermind behind 9/11 to hide within their country.

All the Taliban did was ask America to provide evidence that Bin Ladin was responsible for the attacks before they handed him over. Nobody is suggesting that the Taliban funded the attacks or even knew about them. Al Qaeda was Bin ladin's organisation, and he funded it from his own personal wealth (and used the knowledge and contacts he made when he was America's guy against the Soviets) America considered this an act of war. The majority of the hijackers were Saudi the attackers trained to fly in America, the launched their attacks from within America, they probably bought the box cutters in America. The connection to Afghanistan was very tenous.

monosharp

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Lets look at the actual translation

''The regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time''

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist. The fact that he used the word must instead of should shows a degree of intention and as such can be deemed as a direct threat towards Israel. The sentence 'Wiping Israel off the map'' might have been a bit strong but essentially he said the same thing, he believes Israel must vanish from time

And by the way that quote was mistranslated not by Western media but by Iran's own media.

Man, honestly.

You have any idea about their culture ? How they say things etc ?

You think that any language can be translated to english and an english speaker can absolutely know what was meant by it ?

It could be perfectly obvious to Iranian people what he meant and mean something completely different to western people at the same time.

Why don't you travel a bit and learn something about other countries outside the "west".

moe_sizlak

in answer to the question , is american superiority good for the world

my answer is , it depends what part of the world you live , america like britain before it is an empire and the only difference between american imperilism and brittish imperilism is that american imperilism has been good for ireland and british imperilism has been bad for ireland

american imperilism has been bad for many places , south east asia , all of central and south america , the mid east appart from saudi arabia and israel

oh and to the commentator who said earlier that the neo con agenda states that america should use force to spread democrocy , thats wrong , PNAC or project for a new american century , written 10 yrs ago and the blue print used for this entire bush presidency stated that american should uses its millitary might to shape the world according to how it sees fit

Mr.Micro

Oh there is one thing that Spaced Out forgot to mention and that is climate control .Why worry about keeping world order and the survival of mankind when the planet is probably running out of control with regards to climate change .An issue America refuses to accept and contributes at least 25% to global warming .So will the great American superiority save mankind from all the possible effects of global warming?

monosharp

Ok ....

- America does not, has not, and never will care about anything besides its own interests. To think otherwise is just pure ignorance and blindness. Lets just use South Korea as an example. You really think the US is in South Korea to protect them from the evil North and/or China ? Thats complete bollox, it was complete bollox during the Korean war and its complete bollox now.

The US stays in South Korea because of its strategic value. Even if the North did try to invade without the yanks there, South Korea would be able to defend itself. And an invasion is not a likely scenario no matter what you hear from America/Western media. It could happen of course but then again Egypt might invade Israel tomorrow.

The US committed terrible atrocities in South Korea, against South Korean civilians on "their" side during the war. They do not care about the people, the peoples freedom or anything to do with them. It was about opposing communism and now its about strategic value. Nothing more.

You think South Korea wants the US to stay ? South Korea and the North are trying to "get along" in a semi-friendly manner while the US always opposes any such moves by the South. Kim jong-il was in Seoul recently and the SK president was up North not so long ago.

- About Hiroshima. -> Yeah .. millions of lives were saved. Bollox, utter tripe. It was a war crime that would make Hitler blush. Japan were surrendering, the yanks wouldn't accept it and wanted a conditionless surrender. i.e > The Japanese wanted the Emperor to stay on in some ceremonial fashion and the yanks committed mass murder to show off their shiny new bomb because they woudn't accept it.

Its a disgrace to this day that people believe such tripe. "Yah man we dropped the bomb to save lives".

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote: »

Although if America didn't exist, OBL wouldn't of been trained by the CIA during the Afgan war with Russia. He also wouldn't of attacked because US bases were no longer in Saudi Arabia.

Agree with pretty much everything you said in that post but the above has no evidence to support, most terrorism journalists agree it's a myth.

edanto

Is America a force for good?! Too broad a question, in fairness, and bonkey and Akrasia have already exposed the hollowness of much of what you're saying.

But what are my two cents? Well, I love America, have many American friends and have lived happily there for about a year all told over the years. There is much to respect in terms of liberty of action and a work ethic that leads to opportunity. Sadly, their economic institutions have been overrun by those agreeing with Friedman, leading to the Washington Consensus which has been implemented disastrously in many countries, through the fading puppets of the IMF and WB.

For example, the shocking Structural Adjustment Policies in the 1980s, heavily influenced by the Chicago School of Economics, insisting on privatisation, market liberalisation and reduced government spend on social services. They destroyed many economies and left countries open to be raped by foreign firms, including many US multinationals. One example of the stupid policies included in this package of reforms – they insisted that governments got parents to pay school fees, an act that reduced numbers at primary education, and an idea that has NEVER worked in our part of the world, so why did they think it would work there?

Chile and Pinochet and the destruction of the Chilean middle class into slumbound peoples is another example of disastrous intervention by the CIA/US Economists ruining the standards of living for the vast majority of the population under the guise of the ‘free market’. In my opinion, the free market is not equal to a free people, yet US policy has conflated the two freedoms resulting in a massive accumulation of wealth for those at the top of the ladder, with the majority of the world’s population ‘free’ to fight for scraps.

More recently, the constant state of fear and threat engendered by the War on Terror has led to a booming Defense industry in places like the US and Israel [Incidentally, you commented on US Foreign Aid, the single biggest recipient is Israel, hardly a third-world country, and the bulk of that aid is tied to military purchases of US equipment & technology] and a lack of security for the rest of us. Unfortunately, this lack of security has resulted in an economic boom for fear-related products and companies and a rewriting of the old maxim that profit is a casualty of war. It could be said that these days, profit is a driver for war.

Let me illustrate this with an example - the US Defense Research Policy Board was headed up by Richard Perle (a PNAC signatory) and advocated the invasion of Iraq strongly. What he kept quiet was that his company Trireme won $100m of defense contracts and for some reason he was portrayed as an impartial expert when it came to news reports. Other members of the board were also tainted by conflict of interest,

nine of the board's thirty members had relationships with weapons contractors that together had received over $76 billion in contracts from the Pentagon

link

So, there are examples aplenty of the freedoms present in America being used by bad people to make money off the backs of those in conflict, poor or resource rich areas of the world and that stinks. America can't be good or bad, it's only a country - but the actions of some of its people are evil.

Hobbes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Agree with pretty much everything you said in that post but the above has no evidence to support, most terrorism journalists agree it's a myth.

Which part? CIA trained is alleged. OBL demands to remove US forces from Saudi is documented as one of his demands and there is a TV interview where the diplomat to Saudi went on record of OBL being helped by the US in the Russian Afgan war (shows up in F9/11 documentary).

gbh

America is actually run by a very small narrow elite and it gets smaller and smaller as seen in recent years with the presidency rotating between people of the same family...You are talking so about a very small gene pool at the top and we have seen what that has lead to. To get a job in the Whitehouse you have to be friends with Daddy or your daddy has to be a friend of the other guys daddy. Or else there is some kind of payback for a favour done years ago. So american democracy is farcical really a bit like chinese elections where you vote from candidate a of the communist party of candidate b of the communist party, there is the bear minimum nessecary of choice so the establishment can call it democracy. Once in power the elite go back to what they know best, thieving and deceiving and plundering and mismanagement much in the way of an old European monarch.

The superiority comes about from the hard work of the ordinary population. But American superioriy is bad, because of the small gene pool at the top you get very poor decision making especially on foreign policy. If Americans were a sophisticated cultured race then maybe any superiority would be good. But generally Americans are not sophisticated or cultured or indeed mature. Like children (with the exception of those who were against the Iraq war) they always have to have their way and their blinkered and self serving approach has caused chaos in places such as Cambodia, Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Latin America, and behind virtually every serious conflict the world over in the last fifty years you will find American involvement in one way or another.

eoin5

monosharp wrote: »

Not worth replying to. Pure utter trolling.

I think its the fun side of trolling tho

On the home circuit the US suits the Irish thang so well. Were all obsessed by assets that any immoral grab has an implied "I dare ya". Well be feicked when the dollar goes dead in the water.