• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire?

Recce41 said:
Baker
There are Canadians (troops) there, by the way. Canada has taken the lead for Africian rebiulding.

The US federal government gave $3.4 Billion dollars to Africa in 2004.  The ammount has been slowly increasing, in 2000 it was just under 3 billion.  How exactly has Canada taken the lead?  By proposing that whacked-out debt-cancellation idea?

Recce41 said:
As for debt, personal in both countries are equal, as I would agree, but goverment debt is what I'm talking about.

Uh....I can see you're rather confused.  Might want to re-read his post and then re-think that.
 
48
I did read his post. Yes Canada is in debt, but it how our debt is incured. I kinda got the low down from my sister in law, a CA for the Goverment of Canada. Debt can be incured by many ways. The 2 biggest for a goverment is low export and high import and to borrow of the world bank. There is also in country purchases that have to be payed from taxes. Exports can change the debt slowly, borrowing very fast if not controled, and in country debt is the quickest way.
To pay it off can be done in ways the no interest is payed. Exports, charging no inport tax. borrowing from the bank investing in coutries such as in Africa, SA, Far East. In house debt is what a goverment buys from companies, giving tax brakes to them, etc.
Personal debt is different, it is what each person owes and not what the goverment owes. If we included the goverment and we be nude with a barrel.
What I'm talking about Africa is OOOOO Saddam was so bad, he killed 10s of thousands. But what about the DHs in Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, etc. All we ALL do is give more money, yes all of us. I'm not saying go and stomp on ever one. But if the US considers themself now as the worlds Peaceforce, well I hope you get my meaning.
 
Debt is incurred in only one way, when expenditures (all forms) exceed income (all sources). Governments borrow money from investors in the form of Government securities (T-bills, Bonds).

Since governments have the power to create money; and also the power to seize real assets, there is generally no problem in getting investors to accept the validity and good quality of the treasury instruments. As to paying it back with no interest, sorry, but investors do not lend their money for free, If I am going to buy a bond from Ford or the Federal Government, then it is because they promise to repay the principle with an appropriate rate of interest.

Recce41 said:
If we included the goverment and we be nude with a barrel.

What Mr Dithers and co have failed to say is not only does the Federal Government owe over $500 billion dollars in secured debt (i.e. Government of Canada Bonds, T-Bills, Canada Savings Bonds etc.), but there are also over $500 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities outstanding as well, in the form of pension payouts for CPP, government and military pensions, OAS, disability pensions etc. In other words, if you think you are entitled to a pension in the future, there is absolutly NO money set aside to pay for it. Pensioners will be pretty cranky when they realize there is no cheque in the mail, so any number of expedients could be used to mask this, almost all bad. If announcing the end of CPP and the cut-off of pension cheques was the worst thing that could happen, bring it on. Massive devaluation of the dollar due to creating money to "pay" the pensioners means high or even hyper inflation, while the cancellation of other government programs to feed the ever growing pension liabilities is another possibility. In short, we are already standing in the open, without even the benefit of a barrel, and watching the storm clouds gathering.....

As for the relative value of Africa vs Iraq, due to various reasons Iraq impacted on the National Interest of many nations, including Canada, wheras Africa does not. Since we do not have infinite resources (and from the previous paragraph, we actually have the very thinnest margin of resources to work with), we must apply what we have to the National Interest first, formost and always, or we will cease to exist.
 
Recce41 said:
What I'm talking about Africa is OOOOO Saddam was so bad, he killed 10s of thousands. But what about the DHs in Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, etc. All we ALL do is give more money, yes all of us. I'm not saying go and stomp on ever one. But if the US considers themself now as the worlds Peaceforce, well I hope you get my meaning.

The only ones accusing the US of acting like the "worlds Peaceforce" ( actualy, I think it was police-force) are the left-leaning hippie types.  George Bush certainly never claimed it, nor did any government or military official.  So...no, I realy don't get your meaning.  The US acts to protect it's own interests and the interests of it's allies.  Africa has little impact on any of us.
 
I'm with 48th on this one.  The US ardently does NOT want to be the world's peacekeeper or even the world's peacemaker.  Largely for the very reason that you, recce41, cite - money.  They know, what most young left wingers don't and that is that even with the world's largest economy, and the ability to print more of the currency that has become the world's de facto basis of commerce, there is no way that they can afford to act as policemen everywhere.  It just can't happen.  They can't afford to donate the service.  Other countries won't pay them for the service. In fact there isn't enough money in the world for anybody to supply the service everywhere.

The Americans, and every other country of the OECD, need and want stability to allow commerce to occur and their citizens to make money. If their citizens make money they are happy and governments don't have to spend money keeping them happy.  The OECD (membership - http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html) effectively represents all the successful capitalist economies of the world (they are the self-sufficient economies that donate aid in the form of money and services to other countries).  It includes Germany and France and other soi-disant socialist/social democratic countries.

Even if these countries all contributed their entire disposable economy to the task there still would not be enough money, their people would want to know why the money wasn't buying them knee replacements and the recipients of the services would continue to be both suspicious and resentful of the "assistance". 

The only sure cure is in the form of national "self-discipline".

Lacking that, when idiots take advantage of the lack of order to make life miserable for the rest of the world - any country, group or individual  - that country, group or individual has a clear right to address the idiots.  They can do this by ignoring them (not investing in the area) or if they can't do that, by protecting themselves.  Take action.  Counter the idiots or eliminate the idiots.

A fanatic, of any specie, is an idiot.

 
48th
You said it, if it doesn't hurt us, just turn our backs. What interest did we have with Iraq? We have our own oil, we don't need any sand, we have Suffield, Camels are a lil poor at pulling a sled. And don't give me the WMD crap. The US gave it to them, for the war against Iran.
I think it's living so near 2 Ks away, to the US, has given me a different outlook on Americans.

I'll tell my Sister in Law shes wrong. After 4 yrs Univ. and 20+ yrs working for the Goverment.
 
Recce41 said:
48th
You said it, if it doesn't hurt us, just turn our backs. What interest did we have with Iraq? We have our own oil, we don't need any sand, we have Suffield, Camels are a lil poor at pulling a sled. And don't give me the WMD crap. The US gave it to them, for the war against Iran.

::)

Read through the forums; all these things have been discussed before, and I'm not going to take the thread off topic just to debate with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Recce41 said:
I think it's living so near 2 Ks away, to the US, has given me a different outlook on Americans.

I'll tell my Sister in Law shes wrong. After 4 yrs Univ. and 20+ yrs working for the Goverment.

Awesome.  Hope she takes it well.  Good luck!
 
What I've found to be more disturbing after 9/11 is what followed after that fatal day when Americans adopted a different attitude. Instead of looking outwards and seeking to understand the causes behind what had happened to them, Americans have withdrawn into a delusionary world of self-righteousness and arrogance.
The worst kind of this state, which manifested itself as ' patriotism ' and being exceptional, prevented Americans from carrying out much needed soul-searching and fact finding. Instead of trying to understand the root causes, most Americans accepted the naive conclusion that America was attacked because it was "good, free, economically prosperous, and democratic".

And instead of reaching out to the Muslim world to try to understand the causes of the strong dissent and the anti-American sentiment that caused the attacks, America alienated Muslims worldwide. Rather than encouraging more cultural exchanges and dialogue between America and the Muslim world, Americans opted for xenophobic paranoia. It is clear that the tragedy of black September brought out the worst in America. What happens next is just a consequence.

The Bush administration was quick to exploit the memory of this tragedy to push forward its hidden agenda not only in the Middle East but also in many parts of the Muslim world. Despite America's constant denial of having a hidden agenda or plan to re-map the region, its declared plans reveal the opposite. Bush's neo-conservative expansionist agenda includes Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Sudan. According to Bush's logic, America has to invade all these countries.

This is a dangerous trend, and perhaps we should not be surprised with statements like: "You are either with us or against us." Seems to me just another way of silencing debate and portraying any dissent as unpatriotic. With this statement, the America Empire has made it clear that it sees the world in black and white. There is no compromise, no debate, and no dialogue.
Al Qaida, in its narrow thinking, has also divided the world into two divisions: Dar-al-Islam(realm of peace) and Dar-al-harab(realm of war). Some would argue that Bush's outlook is no different. In his narrow mindedness, he seems nearly as bad as Al Qaida. He divided the world into two distinctive camps: the axes of war and axes of peace. Both Al Qaida and the American administration see the world in the same manner and both bring into play God's name as a justification for their extreme policies. Both believe in out-of-place religious interpretations, and each believes that God is on their side.

In such an atmosphere of anger and hatred, vengeance and darkness, tolerance could no longer survive. But our friends to the south should know one thing: it is not hatred that drives people of the Arab and Muslim world to stand against it. Rather it is its arrogant attitude and its unjust and double standards that make people hate America.

To ease the tension and alleviate the anti-American sentiment, America should stop acting like the bully that cuts into the supermarket line simply because of her size and strength. Many commentators believe that because Bush had lost the war against Al Qaida, he had to turn to Iraq. Hence, it is the policy of vengeance and intolerance that still dictates American foreign policy.

The time is now for the Americans and the Muslim world, to put aside their differences and work together so that they are able to reclaim the greatness of their respective cultures. If the level of tolerance and debate in both cultures continued to deteriorate and if both continued with their inward withdrawal, both will certainly lose everything that they may have stood for: principles and ideals that turned both of them into great civilisations.

I hope that history is not doomed to repeat itself, for we should always remember that great empires are not destroyed by outside forces, but rather by forces within. We only hope that history's lessons are fully understood. :salute:


 
Quote from: Infanteer on September 17, 2005, 11:51:38
(ie: where is Carrolyn Parrish from?  ).


Urban Ontario. Big difference from the rest of it.

Very much the case.  Orangeville, Kitchener, Peterborough and Haliburton have a lot more in common with the West than they do with Trawna.
 
The US was attacked and elected to fight back rather than feel guilty and pronate itself before everyone with whom it ever had a policy disagreement, and that is disturbing?

Everything has a "cause".  So what are the "causes" the US should eliminate?  No more nipples on TV?  Return women to second class status?  Stop propping up the regime of the US's preference to allow the adherents of an antagonistic regime-in-waiting take over?  That last one is basically it, isn't it?  "You, Bad America! We have a Grievance! You must eschew your interests and stand aside so that <insert name of political faction here> can seize power and rule the peasants of <insert locality here>."  If social and economic liberty are not the "root causes", then political opportunism and squalid power struggles are pretty much all that are left.

Given a choice of regimes, the US tends to back those which support it.  Gee.  Imagine.  And all the fools continue to prate on about how the regimes supported by the US are immoral and illegitimate, as if the alternative were necessarily moral and legitimate.

What sort of cultural exchange and dialogue would you propose between the US and Islamic fundamentalists that isn't simply a one-way dogma pipeline?

Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Sudan.  All models of international cooperation and humanism.

"With us or against us" was a rhetorical device which managed to incite a few "tolerant" souls to incoherent rage which they still haven't outgrown.  So much for their reason and maturity.  The US hasn't closed its borders and declared war on everyone who is not "with them".

Empires are destroyed by outside forces after the empires weaken themselves from within.  I don't see the US weakening itself much yet, although not for lack of trying in many quarters.
 
Brad Sallows,
A little light reading for you. Respects. :salute:

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
 
Sapper Bloggins said:
Brad Sallows,
A little light reading for you. Respects. :salute:

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

:blotto:

You just proved his point perfectly.  Couldn't have done it better myself.
 
No point has been proven, just a difference of opinion. :blotto:
 
"The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."

That is just high comedy.  Think of what Britain's foreign policy was in Europe for centuries...

[A simple truth: a nation can be either isolationist or non-isolationist.  If the latter, then by definition the nation is going to be sticking its fingers in someone else's pie.]
 
Brad Sallows said:
"The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."

That is just high comedy.  Think of what Britain's foreign policy was in Europe for centuries...

[A simple truth: a nation can be either isolationist or non-isolationist.   If the latter, then by definition the nation is going to be sticking its fingers in someone else's pie.]

Too binary- needs further subdivision. I think pie sticking can be pro-active non-isolationism, which the USA is now overtly not. [although perhaps they are covertly]. In my view, the USA of from Sept 2001 forward switched from pro-active non-isolationist to reactive, hostile isolationist,* indeed hyper reactive and in dire need of a massive dose of Ritalin, for it is now certain that any stimuli can set them off.

I would also disagree that the binary nature of the isolationist/non-isolationist camp applies to all nations. I think it depends on the nature and structure of government, and where the power of foreign policy and military action resides along with the means to execute and retain control of those policy's.   If an elected house can thwart an attempt at war, or override the executive and declare war itself, this would seem to indicate war could only happen when that elected house is willing and able. Where the executive engages in war "mongering" (for lack of a better term) and the elected house simply goes along without questioning all of the assumptions all the way through to the surrender table [as they have every right to do, in the best interest of all of us] then the system is dysfunctional and professional soldiers of today ought to know better than take orders from dysfunctional governments. History probably shows us at least that much.    

* hence, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." - What a stupid, dangerous, vile and astonishing statement! In my view, if you have to threaten other countries into your camp, then you are setting up camp on a flood plain with high water on the way. The civilized world was already anti-terrorist but fortunately most won't be bullied into war for the sake of something to do in order to claim a victory for CNN to report [ or, for that matter make a victory for CNN] whilst blindly hoping the blip in the insurgencey simply passes into another period of dormancy.   The insurgency probably pre-dates the Westpahlian model of states and it will likely sustain itself well past the existence of some the key states involved in the current matrix- [on either side].   What is different today than perhaps even 40 years ago, is that Muslim states will likely play a key role in suppressing the Islamic insurgency until at least a few generations in the future. The next really big battles will be fought domestically as the insurgents work their way into the fabric of opposing states and systems.

 
American reaction to the 9/11 attacks was a result of "realpolitic" at work. America's allies such as Europe, Japan, and its trading partners like India and China are heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil (interestingly enough, the bulk of American oil imports come from the western hemisphere), so any threat to disruption of the oil flow would create potentialy catastrophic disruptions to the world economy.

A similar situation existed in the last century. The "banana" wars in Central America make little sense if you take the United Fruit Company as warmonger argument seriously, but make a great deal of sense when you realize Cuba, Dominica and Hati, as well as Nicaragua define the eastern and western approaches to the Panama Canal, which was considered key to 19th and early 20th century US trade and Naval strategy.

Since the the Jihadis have expressed a desire to topple the House of Saud and choke off the oil supply, and the Iranians have expressed a desire to attain nuclear weapons in order to dominate the region and control the oil supply, a collision with American interests was inevitable. Since the Iranian desire has been apparent for decades [even the Shah was interested in becoming the regional hegemon], the Americans were interested in supporting Iraq as an economy of force measure, rather than attempt to conduct an invasion in, say 1980.

History has demonstrated that the "realpolitic" approach has failed, or at least led to very undesirable side effects, so the drive to liberate and democratize the region is an alternative strategy, which has the benefit of being potentially self sustaining, and as the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon proved, can also be home grown as well.
 
Proactive or reactive doesn't matter.  One can anticipate and be proactive; one can miss something and be forced to be reactive.  The US was reactive in Afghanistan and proactive in Iraq.

The "binary" point remains: any interference in what is perceived as another's internal affairs, regardless of intentions or means, risks becoming a "root cause" for a grievance.  Whether the aggrieved party is being rational is irrelevant; indeed, it is the irrational aggrieved party which is most likely to initiate conflict.  It is therefore pointless and foolish to pretend "root causes" can all be addressed unless one adopts a posture of inaction.  That leaves foreign affairs as we know it: the exercise of power of any sort in pursuit of national interests carries risk.

What is "dysfunctional government"?  Sticks and stones?
 
Maj. Baker:

It will never be your turn.  You will just have to adopt the attitude of my old British imperialist forebears.  There was us and there was everybody else. French, Arab or Dayak head hunter, they were all much of a sameness and got treated equally. Most unfortunate that they weren't Brtish - not for want trying though. ;D
 
S_Baker said:
After SEP 11 there were celebrations in the street through out the Arab world (supposedly in Canada too),
Umm, no (to Canada, that is).

recriminations on CDN talk shows
Umm, no.

French conspiracy theories, etc., that all blamed us.
There were as many conspiracy theories circulating in the US, tempting thought it may be to blame the French (who, I admit, take to that sort of thing with greater enthusiasm).

Tell that to the children on the airplane that were targeted by fanatics
Children were specifically targeted?

Listen, the Arab world is messed up because of what they have done to themselves, they choose to live in 14 century isolation, blame everyone else, seems to be the mantra.  Get the heck over it!  I choose to stand up to fanatical fucks that target innocent women, children, old men, teachers, doctors, politicians and anyone else that doesn't agree with them. 
Watch FOX much?
 
Back
Top