Is the USA a big bully these days?

Badabec wrote: dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene. The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for that. And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil) companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world police (that is a very, very arrogant position).

I agree. If we truly had concern for the people of that region, we might try to understand their culture a bit more. Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.

dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene.

The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for that.

And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil) companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world police (that is a very, very arrogant position).

dralan wrote: NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene.

Yes, I can safely say that I'm not proud to be American, although I'm not as extreme as some others here like Flossy (I don't hate America, but there are many places I'd rather live).

I think it's a little late for this question. This point was more firmly established a couple of years ago, when W was still in his prime. Since the heat has been on, the U.S. doesn't have quite the same posture. Plus the new Congress isn't going to allow the same B.S. as before.

debrewguy wrote: IVNORD wrote: Jim Garten wrote: debrewguy wrote: As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ??? That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States. As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.   THe US almost always acts in support of its interests, rarely as a benevolent giant. For the past 20-30 years probably only Somalia was a humanitarian action (that's why it failed ). That's why we did not intevene in Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. Some actions appeared to be humanitarian but they were not (Haiti, Kosovo). You're right. The U.S. almost always acts in its own interests. For some reason, the international community is surprised that any country would be willing to sacrifice its' soldiers for anything else. France is not questioned this way, China & Russia would angrily respond that they have a "right" to do so. But the U.S. is held to another standard. Not to say they always do right, just to say that the U.S. is considered fair game for any arguement that suits the plaintiff ... P.S. for any country to send caucasion soldiers into an african country is to set them up as very visible targets. One - their colour sets them easily apart as the enemy, two  - the "imperialist" tag gets stuck immediately. As for the non-intervention in the countries you listed, why wouldn't Russia, China, India or even the African Union be taken to task for their lack of action ? Again - the double standard. We want the Americans in when we want something done, but abhor the thought that they would take it upon themselves when they believe intervention is necessary. Again, I add the fact that this does not automatically say that all their actions are justified.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: ^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms.

Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.

That point is contentious, obviously.

Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.

IVNORD wrote: Jim Garten wrote: debrewguy wrote: As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ??? That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States. As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.   THe US almost always acts in support of its interests, rarely as a benevolent giant. For the past 20-30 years probably only Somalia was a humanitarian action (that's why it failed ). That's why we did not intevene in Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. Some actions appeared to be humanitarian but they were not (Haiti, Kosovo).

You're right. The U.S. almost always acts in its own interests. For some reason, the international community is surprised that any country would be willing to sacrifice its' soldiers for anything else. France is not questioned this way, China & Russia would angrily respond that they have a "right" to do so. But the U.S. is held to another standard. Not to say they always do right, just to say that the U.S. is considered fair game for any arguement that suits the plaintiff ...
P.S. for any country to send caucasion soldiers into an african country is to set them up as very visible targets. One - their colour sets them easily apart as the enemy, two  - the "imperialist" tag gets stuck immediately. As for the non-intervention in the countries you listed, why wouldn't Russia, China, India or even the African Union be taken to task for their lack of action ? Again - the double standard. We want the Americans in when we want something done, but abhor the thought that they would take it upon themselves when they believe intervention is necessary. Again, I add the fact that this does not automatically say that all their actions are justified.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer.   Let's be realistic.  Can the US cut itself out of the global economy?  And if so, what is that great cost?   Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs.   Way off topic now: Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.    When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it.  Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.       I'm not supporting protectionist economics. I'm was just stating some facts.

Eerichtho wrote: One of the greatest stupidities of the US is their environmental policy. And they don't even seem to learn from the natural catastrophes in south-US...