Americans. You guys!!

[Solly]

From the linked article:

Monopoly Militarism and the U.S. Monopoly on the Militarization of the World

The example I want to give you concerns the way the U.N. works under U.S. monopoly militarism. This example took place at the time when the decision was being made in the Security Counsel to give the United States permission to intervene in Iraq -- not just to intervene, but to choose the date and the manner and to run the war.

At the time when the vote was about to be taken in the Security Counsel the U.S. Ambassador did a little private poling and found out that China would abstain and I think Cuba or Yemen or somebody else was going to abstain. Most of the other countries on the 15-member Counsel were going to vote in favor. But two were planning to abstain that were just regular countries. Not like China. They were regular U.S. subordinates. One was in the Pacific and the other was Venezuela. This story was told me me privately by a diplomat at the U.N..

George Bush called the head of the Venezuelan government and said, `Hello Mike, Your Ambassador up here is sort of a loose cannon. He says he is going to abstain from this vote.' The President of Venezuela said, `No, no he's not a loose cannon. That is our position. We're going to abstain.' And Bush said, `Well, I don't think that's such a good idea. I hope you'll change your mind.'

In the next week, U.S. customs officials were unable to clear the airlifted shipments of Venezuelan flowers which represent a major source of income to Venezuela, which sat on the ground and rotted in the planes. This was U.S. policy until President Bush heard that Venezuela was going to vote in favor.

So this is the global economy and global monopoly militarism working upside down. We have the flowers wilting in front of the guns.

Link (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/ifg041400RF.html)

[Ryokan]

If you want to do something about, why don't you build your own military, and offer realistic solutions to deal with the worlds problems? Otherwise, the US has no choice to protect ourselves by what ever means necessary, because our allies are too weak to do it.

[Ryokan]

and monopolist capitalism hasn't ruled the world for about 100 years. That is just BS, Solly, and I think you know it.

[Epoetker]

Complaining about our military monopoly? Get back in the military game, stop spending all that public money on initiative-sapping social programs and encourage economic growth. We will brook no moralizing on sexuality from those who chose to castrate themselves.

[kiwimac]

Epoetker,

Considering those countries who treat their citizens with respect and decency are better places to live than the US, I would think you'd be more careful of what you speak!@

Kiwimac

[spl_cadet]

03-11-2003 @ 07:21 PM
kiwimac:

Epoetker,

Considering those countries who treat their citizens with respect and decency are better places to live than the US, I would think you'd be more careful of what you speak!@

Kiwimac

THen why do they all keep coming here?

[kiwimac]

Define "They" in that sentence please

Cadet

[flipper]

Ryokan:




If you want to do something about, why don't you build your own military, and offer realistic solutions to deal with the worlds problems? Otherwise, the US has no choice to protect ourselves by what ever means necessary, because our allies are too weak to do it.



Yes well, then you mustn't kvetch and moan if it seems like all hands are turned against you. I have nothing against an appropriately muscular foreign policy, but this one seems quite unskilfully wielded.

Mao identified the key to victory as winning the war on Five Fronts. You guys seem convinced that you can win it on two.

[Solly]

03-11-2003 @ 06:42 PM
Ryokan:

If you want to do something about it, why don't you build your own military, and offer realistic solutions to deal with the worlds problems?

Hmmm, I notice the confluence of "military" and "realistic" there. Why didn't the US invade the Soviet Union when they had WMD? Or China? Oh, wait, they're big guys, the US might get a bloody nose. Better to trounce clapped out ME countries who dont have the hardware to defend themselves. THAT'S realism alright.


Otherwise, the US has no choice to protect ourselves by what ever means necessary, because our allies are too weak to do it.

Too weak to do what? Defend America? And against what? Oh look a vast fleet sailing across the Atlantic has slipped past the NATO forces stationed there!! I seem to recall it was complacent internal security procedures that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Of course, if we are speaking of Allies, let's mention how our American Allies supported the UK by placing Ireland at the top of the agenda, esp at fund raising events for the IRA. You guys certainly faced down the "Irish vote" on that one. :argh:
As mentioned elsewhere, the US administration is using the "national interest" gambit so much, they can't see any one else's interests, nor seem to care.

[Ryokan]

To Solly: As 9/11 and the Noeth Korea Situation have aptly demonstrated, there are threats to American securtiy in the world. And, as your article aptly pointed out, our strength gives us the ability to protect even our soldiers who are fightings livesfrom these foriegn dangers. And since we don't just use these troops to defend American interests, but global interest, (Kosovo, for example) I do not think we are wrong to expect the world to repay us by allowing to take elective actions in our own interest, (i.e. Iraq). The US doesn't owe the world anything. It may be smarter to give the world something, but we bought the planes, we sell the goods, started the companies, fight the wars, and police the peace until its not so dangerous. Its our right todo that for our best interest.
And Americans hate and do not want more "internal security" Every time we get more "internal security" we get less freedom, as it is sucked away by Tom Ridge or John Ashcroft. We'd rather pay for our Army with money than our paper pushers and airport scanners and ID card checkers with freedom.
And realistic would be a plan that actually had a chance of disarming our enemies.
To: It is not unfair to say the diplomatic situation has been horribly and irreconcilably botched, and the Bush administration should be trying to rebuild our ties. But thats because it benefits us. Not because we are obligated to use our military when France says its okay, or the UN security council. And I like to whine, :), so as an arrogant American I will.

[Ryokan]

Oh yeah, and would you consider invading Russia, or China(who is now a valuable tradign partner) realistic? Or North Korea, for that matter? That, is for me, the reason we go to Iraq now, because later may not be realistic.

[$cirisme]

...are better places to live than the US...

Nevermind the fact that many of those places have huge unemployment rates and lower standards of living, huh Kiwi?

:ahem:

[kiwimac]

Cirisme,

Want to back that up with statistics, dear boy?


Kiwimac

[spl_cadet]

US: 5.8%
Germany: 11%
France: 9.1%

[Ryokan]

keep in mind, too, thats without keeping up the higher defense spending if it wasn't for US good graces protecting Europe.

[quetzalphoenix]

Solly--I'd have to lean towards agreement with you. As an American, I'm frankly embarrassed at how quickly we run roughshod over the perspectives of other nations, dismissing them because they do not have our military might or financial power.

I'm still waiting to see the outcome of the war in Iraq--I wonder if we have caused more long-term problems than we can see right now.

I'm not a pacifist, and I think there are legitimate uses of force... but I am not proud of the way we pushed our agenda through (and now seem ready to turn the country over to others to clean up).:no: