Who voted for this guy?!

Bush's job is to make the rich richer. That's what politicians do to stay in power.

I don't really see why people are going 'oh a politician who lied during his campaign and has made policy U-turns already and doesn't care about the poor' Quelle surprise.

Politicians don't care about the poor because most of them don't vote and none of them have any influence in society.

(/end rant)

Drunken Misfits?!?

Drunken yeah but misfits how?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
Sorry if my comments insult you,but theres more chance of pigs flying than of me withdrawing it.
America has always been about self-interest, and what else should we expect from pure bred capitalists? Money makes america go round,materialism reigns supreme.All modern american presidents have aimed to keep america capitalist and in many cases other countries that way too.</font>

It's a shame you aren't willing to reconsider your remarks even in the face of the fact that it's an unsupportable generalization. "America acts in its own self-interest?" Begging your pardon, but isn't that the whole *POINT* of a nation-state? To act in it's own best interests? God forbid that the American government should act in its own best interests *shock horror*. The same is true of *any* nation.

As for pure-bred capitalists...it's a shame you have no clue what you're talking about in economic terms at least. The English gave the world capitalism, the stock market and the modern financial system. The US gave us alternatives to capitalist economies, such as monetarism, or the current supply-sided system. There is *no* such thing as a purely capitalist economy. Show me a purely capitalist economy, and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand economics. And money doesn't just make *America* go round, but the *world*. The sooner you wake up to this and stop singling out a particular nation, the sooner the mud-slinging can stop.

As for US presidents keeping the US capitalist- again, how is this *any* different from the majority of capital-based economies in the West? And...why the hell not? The capitalist system is tried, tested and the most adaptable to a given set of events. If you're claiming a socialist or communist state is more viable bugler- then you're wrong. Comprehensibly so- there is not a *single* lasting model that you could point to with any comparable standard of living and equivalent growth.

As for the US keeping other nations capitalist- that was during the Cold War. As embarassing a piece of history as you'd find, but similar chapters of history exist with *ALL* Western countries. Singling out the US is out of line- be specific about the systems that you think are "all messed up" and I'll respond to those claims. But until then- don't bite off more than you can chew. That generalization you made is ludicrious as it is unsupportable. Explain how you can support it- or retract it. It is that simple.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=

Ohhhhh deaar...

It appears that I've been misunderstood here. Everyone seems to love and enjoy denigrating the "American way of life" without having lived there or seen it first hand. In fact, there is no such thing. There are pro's and con's in every system- this thread is aimed at George W...I have stated in this and several other posts that I hate him and his policies- so let's get that straight for starters. You got personal and called me condescending- that was in no way how I meant it- if you interpreted it that way I apologize. As for my "permanent" smugness...*sigh*. I'm not going to get personal with you bugler- if you're trying to get me to flame you on the same personal level- well you're going to have to do better than that. Just for the record- you got personal- I didn't- I criticized your arguments, not your personal attributes- don't take it personally, please.

Addressing your arguments in order:

1) You state "no nation has previously gone to such lengths to act in its own best interests"(?) I might be stating the obvious here, but colonization anyone? Western Europe, practically in its entirety subjected the majority of the world's landmasses to subjugation, disenfranchisement and a whole manner of other unpleasentness. To say that no nation has so aggressively pursued its own self interest to this point isn't just unsupportable, it's wrong. The spectre of colonialism still hangs like a dark shadow over the world. Subsequent events you have pointed out merely help to prove my point

a) The Middle East: The Franco-Palestinian treaty, immediatly followed by the Balfour Declaration (both *direct* results of the two colonial powers, France and Britain's involvement) are what contributed to the horrible state of affairs in Israel. The *reason* President Hussein invaded Kuwait is that the British divided it from Iraq. The root cause of the problem was colonization.

b) Vietnam: Ever thought *how* Vietnam's situation came about? The French's division into North and South was practically begging for both sides of the Cold War to turn those states into proxies.

I could point to a hell of a lot of other examples- but you get the idea. I am not for a *MOMENT* condoning the US's actions in either the Gulf War or the Vietnam war(or Iran Contra, or numerous other embarassing international incidents)...I actually stood out on a picket line in 1990 to protest the US's stance on that issue- but that's besides the point. BOTH sides in the Cold War were equally guilty of influencing proxy states. The Northern halves of Korea and Vietnam didn't "magically" acquire CPS governments...they were influenced by Soviet China and Russia. You scoff at the "domino" effect in your post... Ever wonder why every *single* government north of Malaysia in SE Asia have(or have had) Communist governments? The domino effect wasn't just a theory- but a series of well-recorded recent historical events. Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Kampuchea- I could go on forever about the domino effect's impact on these nations, even today. Both sides in the Cold war embarked on flashpoints and campaigns in the name of ideology and power- *not* money as you claim. It cost both the US and the USSR billions of dollars to become involved in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan(the latter being purely a Soviet action)- saying that money was the motivating factor is incorrect.

That the US has embarked upon disgraceful and morally insupportable campaigns in the past is irrefutable. To say that the US is the only nation responsible for such acts in the recent past? That isn't just a narrow-minded point of view, but a misguided one as well. It confines blame to the US, where in fact blame can be equally proportioned.

2) Your claim that the US's system cannot be compared to other Western capitalist governments...I fail to see your point. I've done community medical work with the poor in London, Frankfurt, Munchen, Paris, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle and New York. The systems don't just seem similar in those four nations- they are *identical* in the way they treat the poor- and in the way the poor reached their social state. And France and Germany are supposedly "socialist" systems. The simple truth is that the poor, no matter the system, will suffer at the hands of those in power

As far is the US treatment of Cuba goes after the fall of communism- you are aboslutely right- I in no way support or condone our government's position towards Cuba. It is out-moded and air-headed- there is no reason to blockade Cuba at the present imho. Why we did it during the Cold War should be obvious to anyone.

3) True, I did focus on the positive aspects of capitalism. No one denies the negative aspects- I was simply making the point that in a cost-benefit analysis, even in a vacuum, that the capitalist-based system is more workable than any other. Show me a single source that refutes that contention- a mixed economy based on a capitalist ideology is what every economist *knows* governments should strive for. I did jump the gun a little over the issue of communist/capitalist systems, but you were literally espousing socialist doctrine in your original post- it would have been amiss of me at least not to mention it. Likening me to a McCarthyist witch-hunter won't help things

Of course the US benefits from capitalism by exploitation. But on a far less scale than colonialist nations did. Britain's arms sales to Indonesia and Micronesia aside; France's nuclear testing in Polynesia aside- I would still say that while morally insupportable, a nation is entitled to act in its own best interests. If that happens at the expense of others- there's not much any of us can do about that- the US is hardly alone in this regard.

Corporate power influencing political decisions is hardly unique to the US either. Slurring hip-hop as "US culture" is yet another gross generalization. US culture is a melding of the cultures of 20-30 nations- hip hop isn't part of that culture- it is in fact counter-culture. Check your facts on this before you post bugler- 90% of Americans find Eminem abusive and coarse- tarring all Americans with the same brush shows an unfounded annoyance with the US that your other arguments are shadowed with- it may be justified- but you conveniently ignore the historical implications of the issues you discuss.

Lastly- as for the Kyoto agreement- I have stated in previous threads that such an act was unsupportable- but tbh, whether a Western nation is signed up or not makes little practical difference. Historical precedents with the UN, GAT, and now the WTO illustrate this clearly. Unfortunate, but probably true

I apologize for the long post, and any remarks that may have caused offense to some-I can only give you my assurance that it was not my intention to do so.

I just hope to God that Bush cops on soon- or he won't be in office long- I'm hardly alone in the US as far as hating him and his policies goes...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=

I think the reason that there is so much animosity and disdain for America as a nation, is that they are beyond reproach.

1)They bomb Iraq about a month ago, and two days later it's swept under the carpet.

2) They pull out of the Kyoto treaty even though their emissions are almost twice that of any other country. They ARE the largest polluters of the environment. And when they are not allowed to trade off their percentage leeway emissions with nations who already reached their targets, they withdraw.

3) They are caught spying on China (lets be honest) and nobody says so much as boo to them.

If America decides to take action against a country or state nowadays there is no single nation powerful enough to stop or deter them.
And any nation that tries to stand alongside them, gets told to sit back down. E.g. China, Iraq.

I don't think it's hatred of America is the problem, I think it's a fear of America that causes all the negative comments directed at the U.S.

The rest of the world lives in America's shadow now... and to a certain extent holds it up as a shining example of a successful nation ( if you'll forgive the contradictory pun.)

My fear is that America will become the dictator state to the rest of the world if that hasn't happened already. You need a balance, Russia used to give the world that balance, now America doesn't have anyone to look over their shoulder at.

Bob I don't see what grounds you have to be upset with anything that Bugler has said.
Your nation voted Bush in.
Bush IS symbolic of all that is American/capitalist, like it or not.
Is the U.S. the only capitalist country in the world? No.
Is it the best example to take? Yes.