0
   

A Constant and Unending War: The USA vs The World

 
 
australia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 02:36 am
What about Japan? Do they take in refugees? I have never seen one non japanese person in tokyo.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 03:04 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Leaving aside the morality and the - frankly terrifying - notion of a US drunk with power and self-importance trying to blunder about as a moral arbiter and enforcer in one - (sadly with such governments as my own current one wandering about as a sort of mini-me companion) - I was surprised by Craven's opinion. Be interesting to hear more...


The US is not really a moral arbitrator nor is it a global cop. The US is a modern superpower that believes in projection of power and that recognizes the effects of economic contagion.


Yeah - I am responding not to the present situation, but to Bill's desire for the US to BE a world cop. I think at present the US is way too sane to do what Bill says - and mainly dresses up its actions in its own interest in "world cop" clothing - I am arguing against a hypothetical. Nuts, eh? However - I am not utterly convinced that the US will STAY relatively sane....you know, power corrupts, etc.

Craven de Kere wrote:
While I can think of better scenarios it's not something I think worthy of your terror.


dlowan wrote:
I had believed your military to be already over-stretched and unhappy?


Craven de Kere wrote:
I think this has been exagerrated very much.


dlowan wrote:

This opinion seems to have been expressed by others here - and I have been, myself, wondering if the US's time in the imperial sun (or merciless glare, depending on how you look at it) - was likely to be much shortened by this, compared with more conventional empires, like the Roman, or British, or Austro-Hungarian, for instance?


Craven de Kere wrote:
I don't think the US empire's demise is anywhere near.



Hmmm - ok ....well, living at the end of empires ain't nice....any reasons for your opinion that you care to proffer?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 03:09 am
CDK wrote: "recognizes the effects of economic contagion."

Can you explain this?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 05:47 am
Just in case someone thought I was overstating the US Conservatives motives a few pages ago.

here tis: NY Times Editorial
First, wage unending war, second, remove all protections from the working middle class,,,,,,,,,,, seems to be working.

Joe
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 08:20 am
Joe, the link did not work for me.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 08:32 am
Joe, I do not know if this is the editorial you had in mind, but I think it makes your point.

EDITORIAL OBSERVER
What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal
By ADAM COHEN

Published: December 14, 2004 New York Times

The New Deal made an unexpected appearance at the Supreme Court recently - in the form of a 1942 case about wheat. Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest.
Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard, and a few other cases of the same era, for paving the way for strong federal action on workplace safety, civil rights and the environment. Although they are unlikely to reverse Wickard soon, states' rights conservatives are making progress in their drive to restore the narrow view of federal power that predated the New Deal - and render Congress too weak to protect Americans on many fronts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 10:10 am
Bill - you have missed the point of what I was trying to raise.

I will come back later for another try, if I find time.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 10:27 am
I didn't miss it intentionally, I assure you.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 08:37 pm
Yes, Acq, that was it..... I think we are victims of a kind of pinzcer movement. Constant war and the slow disassembling of the social contract.

Joe
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:19 pm
Joe, I have been arguing your second point for some time on A2K to little effect. It has been obvious to me for at least the last three years that the New Deal is the ultimate target of the radical Republicans. But I do not think people really belive that much of what they take for granted could be taken away. Much of what was the New Deal as become integral to all Americans' world view. I think most people have very little understanding of the kind of world proposed by the party they gave almost unfettered control of the government to.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 08:05 am
Quote:
Joe, I have been arguing your second point for some time on A2K to little effect. It has been obvious to me for at least the last three years that the New Deal is the ultimate target of the radical Republicans. But I do not think people really belive that much of what they take for granted could be taken away. Much of what was the New Deal as become integral to all Americans' world view. I think most people have very little understanding of the kind of world proposed by the party they gave almost unfettered control of the government to.


<edited for clarity>

I totally believe it. They've been planning to go after the New Deal for a while and they have the perfect opportunity to do it now. I have no doubt that they will.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 04:57 am
The really odd thing for me is to see people voting against their own economic protections, as if they were invunerable to economic change. Those now in charge of this country favor a federal government vastly reduced in it's influence over the States, and end to everything from Medicare/Medicaid to the Federal Minimum Wage Act.

It really is sweet in it's own bizarre way, this idea that conservatives have that the people who run businesses large and small are all wonderful caring people much like themselves, who would never dream of hiring a person to do a job and end up exploiting them, paying them as little as possible without any benefits or insurance, or setting them back on the street without notice. Why heavens to Betsy no! All those folks running major corporations go to bed each night (on 1100 count sheets) wondering if they can't find a way to pay their employees a fair wage instead of, like every other cost or commodity for business, at the lowest possible price for the best return.

It's okie-dokie for those folks voting Republican if we remove the Wage and Hour Act (what's a little overtime at straight pay if it means keeping your job?), Unemployment Compensation (it's the real strain on wages, why if the employer just paid the worker the insurance fee, the worker would have plenty of savings built up if he lost his job.) or Social Security (Don't get me started.)

I was talking with some twenty somethings the other day about this and one of them said "Well, they can't just dismantle the whole system." and I said "Who's going to stop them? The Supreme Court?"

Joe ( Rolling Eyes ) Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 03:58:26