The American Experiment - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 01-08-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

You have it backward. If the US had kept to its own borders from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

Are we talking physical boarders or interest boarders? We did keep to our physical boarders. The problem is that we don't live in an isolated world anymore. Unfortunately, something you do in your corner of the world affects me in mine. Take a look at the recession. Is it just the US? At first, yes. Then is spread all over Europe, Asia and even affects some of my relatives in BFE Australia. The only places it hasn't affected that I can see are the North and South poles.

pj67coll · #32 01-08-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

You have it backward. If the US had kept to its own borders from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

I don't have it backwards. I was quoting Barnett. I think it's you who has it completely wrong. Your world view, typical of many who seek to bury their heads in isolationist sands, is detached from reality. The US cannot stay within it's borders. The world just doesn't work that way any more and has not for decades. Ignoring that reality doesn't change it. So no. It would not have prevente 9/11. Nor will it prevent future 9/11's. Only shrinking the gap will do that and that will require more US military intervention in the future, not less.

- Peter.

DieselAddict · #33 01-08-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If you are going to talk of that, let me ask you this, how many countries really go the distance to do something that has absolutely no effect on their bottom line? If we tracked any action by one country to another, any 2 or more countries that are not US, what do you think we will find? Will we find that most of the world is selfless? I think not. I think we will find that acts are done to simply make themselves better off. Maybe it is monetary, trade, some backdoor deal, influence, etc, etc. So, if anyone tells me that we do something when it serves our interests, my simple question will be "So what? Everyone does that.".

I was not criticizing the idea of doing things only in the national interest. I only have a problem with people who deny that's what the country does.

DieselAddict · #34 01-08-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I don't have it backwards. I was quoting Barnett. I think it's you who has it completely wrong. Your world view, typical of many who seek to bury their heads in isolationist sands, is detached from reality. The US cannot stay within it's borders. The world just doesn't work that way any more and has not for decades. Ignoring that reality doesn't change it. So no. It would not have prevente 9/11. Nor will it prevent future 9/11's. Only shrinking the gap will do that and that will require more US military intervention in the future, not less.

- Peter.

I'm not calling for isolationism, rather just non-interventionism. I think it's you who's disconnected from reality. Why do you think OBL attacked us? You really think it's because he hates freedom as the war-hawks like to put it? I hope you're smart enough not to buy that BS.

aklim · #35 01-08-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I don't have it backwards. I was quoting Barnett. I think it's you who has it completely wrong. Your world view, typical of many who seek to bury their heads in isolationist sands, is detached from reality. The US cannot stay within it's borders. The world just doesn't work that way any more and has not for decades. Ignoring that reality doesn't change it. So no. It would not have prevente 9/11. Nor will it prevent future 9/11's. Only shrinking the gap will do that and that will require more US military intervention in the future, not less.

- Peter.

I don't think many countries can "stay within their borders" anymore. The problem is that it is a world economy so what you do in your hut in BFE affects me even though I am 3000 miles away. So, in essence, your business IS somewhat MY business.

aklim · #36 01-08-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I was not criticizing the idea of doing things only in the national interest. I only have a problem with people who deny that's what the country does.

I think my problem is with those who are trying to tell me that only we do it. Lets face it, every one does it. The only difference is to what extent and how, all of which is governed by their resources.

aklim · #37 01-08-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I'm not calling for isolationism, rather just non-interventionism.

Why do you think OBL attacked us?

Are we intervening if it is our business too? Where do you draw the line at intervention? If your nonsense in your edge of the world doesn't affect me, fair enough. However, what if it DOES affect me? What should I do? Stand by and let you do what you want and take me down with you?

I would say that it is because we did something to affect our interests and so did he. His interests just differed from us.

pj67coll · #38 01-08-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I'm not calling for isolationism, rather just non-interventionism. I think it's you who's disconnected from reality. Why do you think OBL attacked us? You really think it's because he hates freedom as the war-hawks like to put it? I hope you're smart enough not to buy that BS.

Because he, and his ilk, cannot handle the "content flow" as Barnett puts it of globalization into his corner of the sandpile. Oh I'm sure he just loves freedom - as long as it's freedom to do exactly as he pleases, push his primitivist ideology, keep his women folk in perpetual subservience etc. He certainly does hate freedom in the western sense, as does every radical muslim. For with that freedom comes the things that such folks rightly fear will lead to the destruction of their culture.

- Peter.

pj67coll · #39 01-08-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't think many countries can "stay within their borders" anymore. The problem is that it is a world economy so what you do in your hut in BFE affects me even though I am 3000 miles away. So, in essence, your business IS somewhat MY business.

Correct.

- Peter.

DieselAddict · #40 01-08-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I think my problem is with those who are trying to tell me that only we do it. Lets face it, every one does it. The only difference is to what extent and how, all of which is governed by their resources.

No disagreement there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Are we intervening if it is our business too? Where do you draw the line at intervention? If your nonsense in your edge of the world doesn't affect me, fair enough. However, what if it DOES affect me? What should I do? Stand by and let you do what you want and take me down with you?

Of course you have to draw the line somewhere. As you well know, Iraq was beyond that line for me.

DieselAddict · #41 01-08-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Because he, and his ilk, cannot handle the "content flow" as Barnett puts it of globalization into his corner of the sandpile. Oh I'm sure he just loves freedom - as long as it's freedom to do exactly as he pleases, push his primitivist ideology, keep his women folk in perpetual subservience etc. He certainly does hate freedom in the western sense, as does every radical muslim. For with that freedom comes the things that such folks rightly fear will lead to the destruction of their culture.

- Peter.

Yes, OBL dislikes western culture, but that's not the primary reason he attacked us. Neither is globalization.

pj67coll · #42 01-08-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Yes, OBL dislikes western culture, but that's not the primary reason he attacked us. Neither is globalization.

Really. And just what do you regard as the primary reason?

- Peter.

cudaspaz · #43 01-08-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

I thought they were mindless savages? I think it would say more about the world if it were conquered by cavemen, than it would about Islam. Thanks for the laugh, though. Lots of serious news, you brightened my morning. I'm going to go make some coffee as long as Al Qaeda isn't hiding out in the fog. They might have already claimed my cat, so my mood may just darken yet.

Not too far from cavemen if you think about it.

Kill, sex, women, mine, me, me, me, virgins, ohh yeah, kill, kill, duhh, ug-ug.

DieselAddict · #44 01-08-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Really. And just what do you regard as the primary reason?

He said it himself. Primarily it was the presence of US military on Saudi soil after the first Gulf War, and also US support for oppressive regimes in the ME, particularly the one in Egypt that jailed members of the so-called Muslim Brotherhood because they were going to win too many seats in the parliament. Of course, to a normal person none of this justifies 9/11, but I'm just saying what he thinks. It's true however, that the US supports mostly oppressive regimes in the ME and elections there don't always lead to favorable results from the US point of view. Just look at Gaza where Hamas came to power mostly through democratic means. Iraq may yet turn into an Iranian-style theocracy through elections as well, we'll see. Democracy in the ME, especially one that's forced, shouldn't be thought of as some sort of panacea because it's not.

pj67coll · #45 01-08-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

He said it himself. Primarily it was the presence of US military on Saudi soil after the first Gulf War, and also US support for oppressive regimes in the ME, particularly the one in Egypt that jailed members of the so-called Muslim Brotherhood because they were going to win too many seats in the parliament. Of course, to a normal person none of this justifies 9/11, but I'm just saying what he thinks. It's true however, that the US supports mostly oppressive regimes in the ME and elections there don't always lead to favorable results from the US point of view. Just look at Gaza where Hamas came to power mostly through democratic means. Iraq may yet turn into an Iranian-style theocracy through elections as well, we'll see. Democracy in the ME, especially one that's forced, shouldn't be thought of as some sort of panacea because it's not.

The US being "in" the ME, just as it is "in" anywhere is, of course to support it's own interests. What Barnett's claiming is that globalization *IS* the US's primary interest worldwide. That is a sea-change in outlook from previous viewpoints constricted by great-power interplay and the cold war. The idea that the ME will simply go on it's merry way absent US involvement and everything will just simmer down without detriment to US interests seems utterly wrongheaded to me. There is nothing in the regions history that points to that.

Nation building is what's required to transform failed states in the gap to countries that can actually become functioning members of the core. Nation building you might recall was exactly what Bush said he was *not* going to do when he assumed office. However America's blinkered myopia that had been the case since the end of Gulf War I (which I think would have been far better waged if it had led to the destruction of Saddam back then) should by now have been forcibly blown away.

- Peter.