Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is the USA a big bully these days?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs the USA a big bully these days?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>
Poll Question: A simple yes or no, foriegn opinions valued most.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
38 [64.41%]
21 [35.59%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:41
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Chicapah View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:44
I understand that but the topic here is that the USA is being singled out as the bully so I'm not talking about the generosity of the world at large.
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:44
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims.  Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth.  Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.

I wonder how much of that money went to the poor?
 
That has nothing to do with the U.S.. When corrupt governments embezzle relief money for their own regimes the United States can't be held responsible.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:47
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world   as much as we rule it economically.
 
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.
 
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.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:48
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims.  Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth.  Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.

I wonder how much of that money went to the poor?
 
That has nothing to do with the U.S.. When corrupt governments embezzle relief money for their own regimes the United States can't be held responsible.
 
We digress but still, you make a good point.
 
 
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16435 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:48

Obviously.

Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:52
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world   as much as we rule it economically.
 
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.
 
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?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:53
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims.  Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth.  Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.


Actually, the US does not rank high amongst developed Western nations for its percent of gross domestic income devoted to charity.  While American individuals are very generous, state sponsored money is not so generous.  And it's "the state" that people blame for bullying -- an aggressive "America first" foreign policy prone to "gun boat" diplomacy.

You might find this an interesting analysis: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Even if that were true, that argument would not hold water though.  Do you think that the US government puts more into charitable relief work or the military industrial complex?
Of course it puts more into it's military than foreign aid. How could a country expect to survive if it gives away more money than it puts into its own defense. Additionally, the U.S. government has an obligation to defend its citizens. On the contrary, government foreign aid is not a duty of the government and not allowed by our constitution.
 
And is the US military acting primarily for the greater good (in international dealings)?  Of course its first job is to protect American citizens.

I see US foreign policy as very invasive and bullying (both economic policy as well as military objectives).  I don't see this as anything new either... Look at the state's dealings in Latin America and around the world for many years.  Look at the dictatorship's that have been supported through American intervention.

The US state has a record for not adhering to international law and treaties.

The US is one of many countries that use coercive tactics, but as the major economic and military power, people do focus on it. 

As for China, China has a terrible record.

As Bush put it, "You're either with us, or against us."
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:57
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world   as much as we rule it economically.
 
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.
 
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.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:12
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 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.
 
 
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:17
Yes.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 35751 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:26
Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy).  Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high.  But I don't want to digress too much.

I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies).  Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.

It's economic as well as military policy.
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:42
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
 
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentionsSmile, but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.Wink
 
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit.  But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to.
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Chicapah View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:52
Representative government, whether liberal or conservative, rarely reflects the true intention of the populace.  Do you really think that me or any of my co-workers spend a moment of our day wishing we could bully China, Russia or India?  Any more than the common Joe in Iran thinks about killing every citizen of Israel on a daily basis?
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:53
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
 
I agree. To an extent.
I really do think Bush means what he says, and honestly is trying to do what's best.
However, Cheney and all the people he's sorrounded by are the ones up to no good.
He admitted once to not reading, his advisors tell him everything, like he's in a bubble world.
 
 
So Bush is not the bully, it's Cheney!
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:02
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy).  Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high.  But I don't want to digress too much.

I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies).  Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.

It's economic as well as military policy.
 
While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:04
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy).  Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high.  But I don't want to digress too much.

I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies).  Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.

It's economic as well as military policy.
 
While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican.
 
No to sound like a wise guy, but with you saying this, are you also saying no other country should either?
 
 
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:05
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 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.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:06
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
 
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentionsSmile, but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.Wink
 
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit.  But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to.
 
Ironically, China is the one who needs to be bullied.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:10
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
 
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentionsSmile, but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.Wink
 
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit.  But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to.
 
Ironically, China is the one who needs to be bullied.
 
You do make a point there, they need to be brought back down to earth
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.238 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.