First of all, the very reason I "bowed out" the first time was because your opinion of America is EXTREMELY biased. But since you wanted a "proper" reply so badly, here it is. Enjoy.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
While it is correct that indeed your foreign policy isn't working; it is in fact the overall attitude of 'policing' [the world] which contributes to same.
No; actually it's people such as yourself, who claim America is evil and imperialist, dont support it's efforts. A war that doesnt have the support of the people and/or the said country's allies behind it is doomed to fail.
How do you think the world would be if Iran just... got its way, or the Soviet Union got its way in the Cold War? No, dont answer that question, its meant to be rhetorical.
No different than in the times the US "gets its way".
Please. Do explain how Soviet Russia getting its way is the same thing as America getting it's way.
The world does have some other (non-american) intelligent people you know. Why do you presume to believe that everyone must love things your way or the world would be shit?
Wait, what? People dont like democracy?
Is the 'american dream' and what you call 'freedom' really nothing more than license to exploit? That is how it comes across if you reread some of your own statements below on how your corporations are exploiting even your people. Hmmmm....double-standard maybe?
What double standard? Where did I even IMPLY corporations should be allowed to exploit people?
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
Actually I was implying nothing more than attempting to run someone else's life using subversive methods.
Please, elaborate.
That statement needs elaboration? Remember to keep that statement in the context of the original post of mine to which you were responding.
You said that America was running people's lives using subversive methods, I told you to explain why you thought so. What's the problem here?
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
Of course since you opened this other can of worms no regulation will ever prevent or even begin to control conflict for the purposes of gain (whether it be social or economical)
Where did you get this idea?
The same place where it's obvious if the bully on the block engages in conflict for the purposes of gain; who in their right mind would (or even be able to) oppose them? Hence no 'regulation' will ever prevent same.
I fail to see the logic here. I assume it's more bias.
'Policing' oneself is certainly not the strong suit of the US.
In terms of politics, those are going downhill quite fast (as in the fascist left versus the fascist "right" who "claim" to be conservative) while the trade deficit, excessive government welfare spending, the huge debt incurred from the failed "bailout" and numerous other problems continue to drag it down. In terms of crime and stability, it's quite well actually.
In the american mind everyone else is always to blame/wrong.
Here we have a stereotype of the "American people". Im beginning to think less and less of you with every comment I respond to. Furthermore, what do you even mean?
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
[puppet] governing bodies [can hardly be considered democracies]
What puppet governments? Youve been playing too many games (or watching too many movies) methinks. Anyways, If there are puppet governments that we've set up, that is a separate issue from whether we should be policing the world or not. Last time I checked kids were just starting to go to school for the first time in... forever over there.
Since there is overwhelming evidence (in many forms of respected media) with regard to the US, their 'puppet governments' and the success/failure rate of same I'll let you educate yourself on that subject.
Let me educate myself? If there is such "overwhelming" and overflowingly huge evidence of it then it should be trivial in finding and quoting such an article dont you think?
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
We've freed them from tyranny, given them democracy (a means for them to make decisions for their country collectively rather than them following some dictator), and continue to occupy their land to defend it from Iran and the surrounding terrorist network of alquida (how the hell do you spell that anyways?). Why then, other than the terrorists, would the people have cause to be unhappy?
Some countries do not have the societal structure in place (and may never) to be able to function as you see fit.
Not necessarily false but not necesarily true. By introducing democracy and public schools and such, we are helping recreate and evolve said social structure.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
I did not say "other than defense"
When you invade another country in defense of you or your allies... thats.... defense.
Unless your country is already being attacked, that would as Jafo posted, be a 'pre emptive' strike which is offensive by nature. Statements such as "the best defense is a good offense" (I know you didn't say that I'm just using it as an example to make the point) do not make actions taken under it defensive by nature.
See my reply to Jafo.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
Using your example it might be wonderful for the US's defense to use Canada as a giant 'buffer zone' and maybe set up missile silos etc. within our borders so should we just 'be cool' with the fact that since doing so would serve the defense interests of the US and oh well....?
We'd take the diplomatic approach, because we're nice, but if the matter was pressing enough (like as in, the possibility of WW3) we'd eventually take the position by force if no other options were available. The ends do justify the means.
The ends (more often than not) do not justify the means.
Sometimes they dont, sometimes they do. A few thousand casualties is better than a few hundred thousand casualties. Anyways, I don't think we would invade your country.
At least not if we are to remain 'human' in our interactions with each other. Thank god more people around the world don't hold your viewpoint or this world really would be in terrible shape.
And I have the same outlook on your opinion.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 57
Violating the rest of the world's 'rights' in order to claim security for oneself is the epitome of self-interest.
If you actually go back and read through history, our dealings with other countries have always been more or less mutual.
That statement is so false I don't even know where to begin. Do you really believe the reputation the US has garnered around the world as a 'bully' (at best) is undeserved?
Please, enlighten me. Which country did we invade that ended up in worse condition then it was before as a result?