Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? I take issue with the huge emphasis placed on GDP per capita, which is the only reason the USA fares so well. We can all feel blessed by Bill Gates' wealth. Of course there is. For example, Americans don't smoke as much as others which should translate to an even longer life expectancy. Ah, you're the prime example of the evil American. Punish the children for the "sins" of the parents. Lovely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: heg If we're going to have this debated based on terms that you've arbitrarily created, its going to be rather pointless. As I keep saying - Europe is a cheap plane ticket away. If you want to be embarrassed by this country - fine. I just didn't think anyone's self loathing could go this far. It shows that our evil immoral economy leaves us with so much free time on our hands that we can have the luxury of people like you spewing so much self directed vitriol. Actually, I do. And I'm not wrong. Why is Luxembourg so much better off than France? Is it because they're morally superior in their values?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? So I guess that makes you the prime example of the anti-economist. Screw incentives - parents shouldn't have to try and provide a better life for their kids. It should be the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? One would hope so. Fair enough. Actually, most people hate the half time show. As for commercials - I honestly have no idea what they show. What I do know, is that the viewing audience for the Super Bowl is measured by people who watch it, not by people who have the capability of watching it. Next time you watch the Super Bowl, you will let me know, yes? richard, I'm not suggesting you're all living in constant anticipation of the next Super Bowl. Merely that its more likely a British person would watch it than an American would watch the FA cup final. For better or worse, our media holds a lot more sway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Um... China, 1945-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949. Italy, 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe. Greece, 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture. Philippines, 1945-53: U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. South Korea, 1945-53: After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments. Albania, 1949-53: The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis. Germany, 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Iran, 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent. Guatemala, 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America. Middle East, 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism. Indonesia, 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all. British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower. One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people. Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist. Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist. Cambodia, 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever. Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese. The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed. Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire. Brazil, 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism. For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil. Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America. Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office. Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law. A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited. In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing. Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it. (continued...)
Cuba, 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America. The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea. Indonesia, 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million. It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. " Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population. After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process. They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared. Greece, 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory. It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States. Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans." George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States. East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia. Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job. Nicaragua, 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua. Grenada, 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm. U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers. At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights. In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style." Libya, 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence. Panama, 1989: Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded. Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?" George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it." Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by. Iraq, 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults. Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. " Afghanistan, 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population. El Salvador, 1980-92: El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war. Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads. Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages. Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim. Afghanistan, 2001: Don't know about this one? Get off this board, off that island, and go read a book. Iraq, 2003: See "Afghanistan," above. Haiti, 2004: See Democracy Now!, now. I'd say "Imperial Hegemonic Post-Cold War Nuclear Theocratic Corporate Media-Led Superpower," but that might be a bit much.
Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Stop. Just STOP. Goddamn, man; your overwhelming intellectual implosiveness hurts even me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Are you for real? Kids should be impoverished, have no health insurance, and substandard education in order to provide the proper incentives for parents? Well, Milton, with 1/5 of kids mired in poverty your scheme isn't working. You know, we could send death squads against poor children, that would really provide the proper incentives. How about torture? Let me know when you want to discuss economics...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? only in the US. The rest is just an 'estimate', and being an estimate they can estimate it however they want. FIFA does exactly the same thing for it's claim that 1.5 billion watch the world cup final. It's absolute rubbish. To get 1 billion viewers you'd need to pull in 15% of the rest of the world. How many countries outside of the US are there where the superbowl is a big enough draw to pull in 1.5% of the population, let alone 15%? I don't need to watch it to tell you that. If it's being shown on a TV channel in Germany they will have German adverts. Or does the FA Cup final get shown on American TV stations with British adverts? but the American media has no sway at all over here when it comes to sports. We don't see the weeks of build up in news bulletins. NFL scores are not shown on the news. Any references to the forthcoming superbowl in TV shows are meaningless as most are shown months later than they are broadcast in the US (ER's thanksgiving episode was broadcast tonight, for example). For the vast majority it's not a case of choosing not to watch the superbowl, they have no idea that it's taking place. I couldn't name a single NFL player, and no, I have no idea who the current champions are. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more viewers for the superbowl in England than for the FA Cup final in the US, but that doesn't alter the fact that worldwide, the superbowl only has a tiny niche in the world's sports market - whereas you were painting it as being hugely popular (the "Friends" of sports if you will), watched by millions in every country. The rest of the world laps up many US exports, but I'm afraid the Superbowl isn't one of them.
I noted you skipped this part. maybe you didn't notice it. central and south america? USA influence and (direct and indirect) interventions in central and south america fit the notion of hegemony. I also said hegemony in middle east is a work in progress not that it's something done. That's the aim of iraqi invasion not the various assorted propaganda stuff. I don't even think you will succeed in the attempt. or... maybe you will succeed if you become a fascist state. I hope you won't and I don't think you will. I'm not as frightened by US pursuing its own self interest worldwide as I'm frightened by american ppl denying it and believing in fairy tales of good and evil, spreading idiocy errr democracy, which have no place in international politics. that is really something scary. My fears regarding PNAC's agenda (ie bush' agenda) is because of the wars, dead and destruction it could produce worldwide not because i think it will ever succeed. It's a danger for mankind not for a specific nation. The first target of PNACers is hegemony in the middle east, anyone can see if he wants to. The whole idea of PNAC is sole hegemony in the world. Don't look for exact matching comparison with ancient history, things change, strategies change.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Oh, so if you take things to completely stupid extremes its OK, but when I do it, its insane. Because you were serious about our system actually punishing kids for the sins of their parents. There's a death squad going out to steal the food from kids whose parents were criminals, right? Because in France all the money parents make is confiscated upon the birth of their children. And there are no poor neighborhoods, and no privilege for rich kids. None at all. Nope. None. Because of that extra 5% of poor people, America is a complete and total oligarchy compared to the utopia that is France. Substandard education isn't usually the problem that leads to poverty - per district we spend a lot of money in very poor areas, such as Cleveland's inner cities. Try again. I'll pass - there's no point. I'm ending this conversation. I've seen what you can do in this country, and I've seen families go from abject poverty to a good life. Its possible. Many things in America are possible. Many of them are good. You want to whine and moan about how much better the French are - fine. Moan your life away. There are many problems in the US, yes. And I'm cognizant of them. But that doesn't mean the French are "superior morally". If you think so - move to Luxembourg. They're most moral according to you.
Hegemony of the world? With Roswell technology, right? In the 1910s, you could rightly say we had hegemony over the Pacific and Latin America. That is not true today. Sorry to make America seem less omnipotent than you think.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? If you thought I was saying that, its not true. My point was it was more likely that someone in England would be watching the Super Bowl than the FA cup final, since I don't think the FA cup final is even on TV here. Or it might be, I don't know. I was never claiming all the world loves the Super Bowl. But then again, we did manage to export NFL Europe to you
I don't think USA is omnipotent nor that it is the mother of all evils. USA is a democracy yet its foreign policies record is far from being the wonders many of you think they are. I just stated the obvious (US hegemony in central-south america) anyone can see if he/she wants to see it. read again the statement of principles in the PNAC site, compare what they suggest and dream of with the definition of "hegemony" in a dictionary and then tell me if it doesn't fit with the "unrivalled hegemony of the world" notion. They won't ever succeed even if they manage to keep their preminent role in making the US foreign policies but it all doesn't mean they're not dangerous. They're dangerous, their ideas and agenda are dangerous. you or better some of you should start facing reality rather than believing in fairy tales about selfless actions in foreign affairs, things which have no part in the foreign policies of whatever state (apart from propaganda). p.s. roswell technology? You just use your technology or are you going to deny it? p.p.s. Stop making comparisons with roman empire, it reveals something you know. In Italy mussolini did. And no you have not and cannot have the same impact/influence in world history as roman empire.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? The problem with this line of thinking is it is verry short shighted. Allowing people the incentive to generate great wealth furthers economic growth. In the long run economic growth is the real solution to poverty. Envy is not good policy. You think just because you bash the rich it somehow makes you morally superior, but it ignores the reality that a rising tide lifts all boats. Focussing on income disparity and ignoring economic growth is the surest way to make sure that the life of the poor is filled with misery. From your own link Americans consume 2,092 cigereets per year per capita, while the french smoke 1,757. % of Adults living with AIDS/HIV in the U.S. .61% in France .33% I don't have statistics but I would bet many more Americans are killed in ways where health care was not even relavent like overdoses, car crashes, and murders. Wow nobody ever accused me of being evil before. I'm not punishing anyone. I am simply saying that I recognize that we put a greater emphasis on individuality in this country. Unfortunately some individuals are less capable, (or less lucky) than others, which means they will not be as successfull. There is a delicate balance to be walked between provoding a safety net, and creating a situation where people see no incinteve to being productive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe the hype. Especially your own hype. Have you seen some American tourists overseas? Jeez, no wonder they hate us over there. It's enough to make you pretend to be Canadian! But seriously... Point of order: I think most people overseas can differentiate between American leaders and you as a non-elite individual who happens to be American. There are some who can't, but I think most can. If foreigners get upset at regular Americans, it's probably to the extent that they think we have any say in our foreign policies. Or that they think we know what's going on and tacitly approve of it which are two quite dubious assumptions. Maybe in the future you should carry a book by Chomsky around with you to show that you're not one of the insular Americans ignorant of the realities of our realpolitik. That might save you some trouble.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Don't get me staretd on how our unemployment numbers are skewed in various ways to make the picture look rosier than it really is. Of course, we're not the only ones who do it., unless you think Japan has really had only 1% unemployment for the last 30 years. The Euros are just more (but not completely) honest about counting their unemployed than we are and this creates an inaccurate view of the relative employment pictures. When you factor out all the distortions, the unemployment figures tend to be roughly even in the long run. Sometimes we're higher, sometimes they're higher at any one given point in time. But their true functional unemployment is not double ours any more than ours is almost six times more than Japan's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? This thread has 2 main features. First, it is an argument over name calling, "Hegemon v Empire". How can one word describe any country? While I think it's silly, it has yielded alot of differing thoughts which have led to the 2nd main feature of "values and moral superiority/inferiority." Those that lean toward a socialist state prefer the safety net created by a govt. They appear to be comforted by high % of GDP spending on education, health care, social security, food programs, etc. They do not believe in the responsibilty of the individual. Those that lean toward a capitalist society prefer freedom from the state, i.e. responsibility of the individual, rights and freedoms for the individual. Why do some posters view socialism as the morally superior ideal? Why is someone else's welfare more important than your own? It has been proven in history that socialist states do not provide people with incentives to produce. Additionally, state managers of resources do not operate as efficiently as a family (or employer or salesman) on a budget. Eventually, programs that are based upon the welfare of others are inefficient and cost the overall economy in hidden ways (i.e. price floors for farmer's products that make not only our food products more expensive, but leave us with less $$ to spend in other ways). From personal experience, a friend of mine is a doctor. He tells me that his cost per patient is almost double due to the staffing he has to hire in order to process the myriad of insurance forms. He told me that he would gladly charge about half of his normal fee if he would be allowed to. The capitalist would argue that health care inflation was reduced by 50%, the socialist would argue that people without insurance are now DENIED access to health care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? To a extent I agree; however, the "rising tide lifts all boats" garbage is just that, garbage. It's demonstrably untrue. I'm not envious in the least, I'm just observing that one person's wealth can't be credited to the community's well being. And the Swiss smoke 2880 cigarettes, the Japanese nearly 3000. The point is that these external factors do not come close to explaining the huge mortaility differentials. Again, look at infant mortality rates. I don't deny that there is. I agree, this is a real problem, but we must at least do two things: (1) Provide every person adequeate health care and (2) take care of children who are COMPLETELY helpless.
I'll try this one last time. Show me who here thinks its a "wonder". Yes, and I would imagine that if you WANT to see it, there's a giant magical dragon behind you. The time when the US would randomly enact coups in Latin and South America is over. We don't have that sort of control over Mexico, and our last attempt at serious regime change in Nicaragua did not go well. Maybe in the 70s you might have had a point. Not now - we we're not about to remove Chavez, and as our bumbling in Venezuela shows, we don't have unilateral influence there as we once did. As the PNAC is not my government, I fail to see what your point is. Again, fairy tales about my government? You don't read too many of my posts, do you? Do you understand my reference to Roswell? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Hey - Hitler was a vegetarian, so lets kill all the vegetarians! EVERYONE has compared themselves to the Roman Empire. Its the gold standard of Empires in the Western World! You want to call anyone powerful and corrupt - invoke Rome. Militarily strong - Rome. Cultured - Rome. Rich - Rome. George Washington invoked Cincinnatus as his hero. I guess that means he was similar to Mussolini too Of course we can't have the SAME impact. We can, however, have as much impact. Different, but enormous. Under our "leadership" the world has ushered in a new age of prosperity for many, and globalization, for good or ill. The technology produced by the US, etc. And while Rome is gone, we still have a couple of centuries to muck about (hopefully). Considering our role in helping defeat Hitler, rebuilding Europe, ushering in free tarde and innumberale technology, as well as keeping the world in the manner we happen to like, I'd say our influence has been enormous. Just like everyone around Rome shoved Roman culture down their gullet with abandon, we export the crap that is Friends to every country on the planet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe the hype. Especially your own hype. Its not my fault the Europeans are deaf. I keep yelling louder and louder at them in English, and they still don't understand. Plus, why they don't understand the genius of Hawaiian shirts is beyond me. And then they tried to serve me snails - YUCK! The usual complaint I got abroad, and it was rare, is that "you don't understand what your government is doing", and I'd respond - of course I think we're in Iraq for the oil! And they would then become a lot more reasonable. Many of them, like Sardinia above, think that we're all happy go lucky "US kicks ass" folk, who don't think for themselves. Its probably because Americans have generally been more optimistic historically - would any European government ever dream of saying "we should nurture democracy in the middle east"? I think they often mistake a slightly less pessimistic outlook on life with being complicitly happy and ignorant as to our government's activities. Yeah, like they'd know who Chomsky is? Actually, I usually solve this problem by learning how to say "could you please take a photo of me" in the native language (provided I don't speak it) and then shifting to 3 other languages if they don't understand me. It makes them extremely confused. Despite my Spanish being fair, at best, I got a lot of "are you Argentinian?" when I was in Italy and France. In order, trying Italian, Spanish, English and Russian really throws them off. Stupid Europeans!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Please elaborate on how our numbers are skewed and the French numbers are less skewed. I do not understand your response.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA: hegemon or empire? Most likely he's referring to the fact that we don't count people who are no longer looking for work because they've given up as unemployed. If you've been out of work for 2 years, you're not technically unemployed. Which makes no sense, really. Of course, Europe has its own issues - a good friend of mine from Germany was visiting, and brought a friend with him. His friend had quit his job and moved to Italy for 1.5 years. Why that long? Because that's how long his outrageously generous unemployment benefits lasted. Steffan Effenberg was outraged, I'm sure.