2
   

Understanding America and the Bush administration

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:51 pm
Walter, I read the linked material you cited. it offers nothing new, except perhaps the unsuppported claim that they are "an officially recognized " organization. Problem is they don't say by whom. It is an advocacy organization for journalists which avowedly seeks to gain greater freedoms and protection for journalists than are available to ordinary citizens. That;'s interesting - I don't happen to believe that journalists are either more important or more knowledgable or honest than other people. They are merely peddlers of information and opinion, though they would have us believe they rise to more lofty heights of wisdom,. understanding and integrity than we mere mortals.
0 Replies
 
username removed 3 18 05
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:56 pm
I see.

So there's really no point attempting to cover a story at all, because georgeob knows just as much about the topic in question simply sitting on a bar stool in his local American Legion post.

interesting.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 05:00 pm
Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders, or RWB (French: Reporters sans frontières, or RSF) is an international non-governmental organization devoted to freedom of the press. The name connects to Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières).

RWB is a member of the
International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a virtual network of non-governmental organisations that monitors free expression violations worldwide and campaigns to defend journalists, writers and human rights activists.


... maybe this helps...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 05:03 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't happen to believe that journalists are either more important or more knowledgable or honest than other people. They are merely peddlers of information and opinion, though they would have us believe they rise to more lofty heights of wisdom,. understanding and integrity than we mere mortals.


... on the other hand, in the times of JG and the likes... you're probably right.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:42 pm
blatham wrote:
Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli nationlism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim world and in fueling terrorism. One might say, therefore, that while America keeps a splendid and welcoming house, it also keeps a family of demons in its cellar. Usually kept under certain restraints, these demons were released by 9/11...


I'm not sure that our friendship with Israel is the problem as much as our past support of Arab dictators. It was expedient during the cold war, but it still caused an injustice to the oppressed Arab people.



blatham wrote:
This book seeks to help explain why a country which after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had the chance to create a concert of all the world's major states - including Muslim ones - against Islamist revolutionary terrorism chose instead to pursue policieis which divided the West, further alienated the Muslim world and exposed America itself to greatly increased danger.


I am not sure how we are exposed to greater danger.



blatham wrote:
Under the administration of George W. Bush the United States drove toward empire, but the domestic political fuel fed into the engine was that of a wounded and vengeful nationalism. After 9/11, this sentiment is entirely sincere as far as most Americans are concerned, and it is all the more dangerous for that. In fact, to judge by world history, there is probably no more dangerous element in the entire nationalist mix than a sense of righteous victimhood. In the past this sentiment helped wreck Germany, Serbia and numerous other countries, and it is now in the process of wrecking Israel.
(Introduction...page 1-4)


Israel and the US both have a nuclear arsenal. I am not sure that the processes that wrecked the others will ever be applied to either Israel or the US.

---------

I was sorry to see your thread go so far off topic. I for one find your excerpts interesting and hope you continue to post them.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 11:31 pm
Blatham

I too enjoy your posts and though I'm a new guy and I only know that you are posting from Canada. I know nothing of your politics except that you seem to have accepted the author's premise that we Americans are surely Nationalistic. Of course being nationalistic makes us dangerous because nationalism equates to evil as in Nazi Germany. Being an American I reject that premise. The title of your thread suggests that you would like to understand why we Americans are the way we are but I am not convinced that is your real motive. It might be that you would like to persuade other participants that since the world views Bush as a fanatical religious right wing nut, then all Americans who voted for Bush are fanatical religious right wing nuts

If that is what you believe then I won't take up any more of your valuable time ........... ball in your court Blatham. Tell me what it is you really want to know about us dumb...... Americans.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:55 am
I don't know what it is Blatham wants to know, but I would really like to know why the majority of Americans appear to be delusional about their own country, and what it does around the world.

How is it that America, a new country that held out such promise and example to the world is now exposed as just another imperial empire?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:00 am
rayban1 wrote:
Of course being nationalistic makes us dangerous because nationalism equates to evil as in Nazi Germany.


I don't think nationalism is necessarily evil, or that it is necessarily Nazi-like.



rayban1 wrote:
The title of your thread suggests that you would like to understand why we Americans are the way we are but I am not convinced that is your real motive. It might be that you would like to persuade other participants that since the world views Bush as a fanatical religious right wing nut, then all Americans who voted for Bush are fanatical religious right wing nuts

If that is what you believe then I won't take up any more of your valuable time ........... ball in your court Blatham. Tell me what it is you really want to know about us dumb...... Americans.


I think the motive was merely to talk about an interesting book about America's reaction to 9/11.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:00 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I don't know what it is Blatham wants to know, but I would really like to know why the majority of Americans appear to be delusional about their own country, and what it does around the world.


What delusion do you think we are having?



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
How is it that America, a new country that held out such promise and example to the world is now exposed as just another imperial empire?


We can be the leader of the free world and an empire at the same time, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:31 am
Delusions?

At home, that the idealism of the Constitution pervades public life.
Abroad, that the American brand of empire must be good for everyone else.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:33 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
How is it that America, a new country that held out such promise and example to the world is now exposed as just another imperial empire?


What is there about wanting the same freedoms we have for the rest of the world, that makes us the imperial Empire? What's wrong with the WANTING even though we know it's not realistic? Isn't it better than falling victim to the cynicism of our critics? Achieving that goal is certainly not possible when faced with the obstructionism of our supposed allies and their desire to maintain the status quo.

Where is your proof that we "delusional" Americans want to be the imperial empire? I'll offer you a little proof that your allegation is wrong.........after every war, and certainly after WW1 and WW2, all we wanted was to get rid of our guns and go back to enjoying the freedoms that we now want for the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:37 am
I wouldn't fret too much about it Rayban1. Some Brits are still angry that their attempt at empire failed so miserably and that one of their former colonies rebelled and ended up being the sole remaining super power.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:05 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Delusions?

At home, that the idealism of the Constitution pervades public life.
Abroad, that the American brand of empire must be good for everyone else.



I don't know that it "pervades" public life, but it is an important part of our freedom -- especially the Bill of Rights.

The American brand of empire, meaning democracy and free trade? I'd say democracy and free trade was pretty good for people. Or did you mean something else?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:08 am
Well to answer McG's point first, I certainly agree that the world would be a better place if we had held onto the N American colonies, the loss of which I ascribe to George III (not to be confused with George II) being mad, and relying far too much on Hessian mercenaries. Smile

Why don't I believe in giving freedom to everyone Rayban? Because its bull**** thats why. George Bush would have you believe that people hate America because they are jealous of its freedoms. That bin Laden attacked because he was envious. Therefore America has to go around the world eliminating the evil doers and giving out freedom in large doses.

The reality is slightly different. (getting back to delusions here). The islamists dont hate America because they are envious. They hate america and Britain and the "west" because of our meddling, our interference in the affairs of the middle east over the last century. They just want us to **** off and leave them alone to run their own affairs in their own way. They would not be over here trying to kill us, if we were not over there constantly meddling in their affairs and primarily because they've got a vitally important strategic resource that we are dependent on to keep our economies alive.

America has global reach. Effectively it has a global empire. That empire has its weak points and sometimes its necessary to re-arrange things a little. Thats all thats going on, and its perfectly understandable.

That its dressed up in fine language about combatting evil and bringing freedom is just a sweetner for the people who are kept deliberately ignorant about what is going on, lest they get anxious.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:14 am
rayban1 wrote:
What is there about wanting the same freedoms we have for the rest of the world, that makes us the imperial Empire? What's wrong with the WANTING even though we know it's not realistic?


I don't think "wanting it" is what makes us the Empire. It is that we use our muscle to achieve it.



rayban1 wrote:
Where is your proof that we "delusional" Americans want to be the imperial empire? I'll offer you a little proof that your allegation is wrong.........after every war, and certainly after WW1 and WW2, all we wanted was to get rid of our guns and go back to enjoying the freedoms that we now want for the rest of the world.


However, we're going to take a more active role in the world now, after 9/11.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:20 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
That its dressed up in fine language about combatting evil and bringing freedom is just a sweetner for the people who are kept deliberately ignorant about what is going on, lest they get anxious.


The desire to bring freedom, democracy, and free trade to the world is genuine in the American people.

We put it on the backburner during the cold war, because sometimes it was more expedient to support a dictator that would stand with us against the Soviets. And after the cold war we were too complacent to bother.

But we aren't being complacent anymore.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:26 am
oralloy wrote:
We can be the leader of the free world and an empire at the same time, IMO.


Interesting that you use these terms synonymously.

What about the freedom of those nations, who belong to your empire?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:27 am
oralloy wrote:
The desire to bring freedom, democracy, and free trade to the world is genuine in the American people.


Others got the original sin - you that desire.

I understand.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:41 am
Steve

You're throwing a lot of terms around loosely sort of like a cannon with a mental case pulling the trigger. First we have "Global Reach" then we have "Global Empire" instead of Imperial Empire and then you concede that it was mainly the British who carved up the Middel East when YOU were the Imperial Empire. YOU were the ones who did the meddling and now we are trying to clean up the mess.

How Exactly can you blame us "Delusional" Americans and Bush for all of YOUR unintended consequences?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:44 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Well to answer McG's point first, I certainly agree that the world would be a better place if we had held onto the N American colonies, the loss of which I ascribe to George III (not to be confused with George II) being mad, and relying far too much on Hessian mercenaries. Smile


Britain "lost" the "North American colonies" long before our revolution. They were "lost" to Britain nearly a century earlier with the establishment of self-governing legislatures in the principal colonies which were populated by people who fled persecution and exploitation in Britain. The ineptness of British military operations in the Seven Years War (or French & Indian War) convinced the early Amerricans of the limitations of British leadership, and the post war British attempt to impose taxes on Americans to pay for their inept folly was the final straw. George III was mad, but so was the imperial colonial policy that Britain had been pursuing for a century. A few British statesmen at the time understood this, but evidently the memory of their wisdom has faded - at least for Steve..


Quote:
America has global reach. Effectively it has a global empire. That empire has its weak points and sometimes its necessary to re-arrange things a little. Thats all thats going on, and its perfectly understandable.

That its dressed up in fine language about combatting evil and bringing freedom is just a sweetner for the people who are kept deliberately ignorant about what is going on, lest they get anxious.


Here Steve makes a very revealing admission. In his view we have an empire merely because we have global reach and the ability to enforce our will. Never mind that we do it only selectively, and have not attempted to directly govern most of the Mideast, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent as the British did until just over 50 years ago. There is a rather large difference here, and Steve simply refuses to acknowledge it.

The issues we are dealing with today are a direct consequence of the greed, perfidy, and incompetence of the British and French governments during and after WWI. They knowingly, and without justification, brought down an Ottoman Empire that presented no threat to them, and carved up and divided the spoils - from Syria to Yemen and Egypt (and everything in between). They abolished the Moslem Caliphate, exploited the resources of the region, betrayed both their Arab and Zionist allies, and imposed incompetent misrule on the region, with only their immediate economic interests in mind. We are now, with damn little help from them, attempting to put the pieces back together and restore freedom and enlightened self-rule in the region. They can't forgive us for that, and dread the prospect of our success. Steve somehow, doesn't see or acknowledge any of that, though the facts are undeniable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/18/2025 at 07:15:13