You paint a pretty picture of our hegemony, Radio.

This is essentially opinion, Radio. Less war? Compared to when? There is still a lot of violence around the world; it just isn’t polarized between the U.S. and the S.U. I can ask the same question about “more wealth.” There are still very poor countries that are in complete debt to the IMF and World Bank; the gap between the rich and poor is not being bridged either. Our “free” trade policies favor multi- or transnational corporations and do not promote a true laissez-faire market. Communism is no longer a “global threat” (read: threat to American interests), true, but now we have become just another “evil empire” in the view of other countries. Islamic extremism will soon be no longer a global (?) threat? Have you discussed the surrender of all the militant Islamist with their various leaders? The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are not “freed”; we have occupied their countries. How can you say they are free with all of the shit that our broadcast and print media spew at our faces every day?

Libya is a good example, at least, or it appears to be. Once led by the most hated terrorist around, the country has cleaned itself up, or so we’re told. What has changed, I noticed, is that the country’s socialist programs have been completely dismantled (to the detriment of the lower classes).

Of course, for being so pessimistic I suppose people will call me anti-American and a extreme leftist. I just can’t stand the idea that people believe that the actions of our administration are truly to spread “freedom” and “democracy” and “free trade” around the world. Such a claim ignores the fact that America has and does support dictators and that so called “free” trade has harmed people around the globe.

I live in America and have my whole life, and I don’t taste these bitter pills. Even if I could, I wouldn’t grant myself too much pity; after all, I’m sure it would taste better than blood or shrapnel.

American exceptionalism defined. Please back up your first statement with actual events – that second statement can’t be proved and is completely your optimistic opinion.

This is good advice, but it seems to run against human nature. If someone says something bad about someone else’s home, that someone else will generally fire back with a statement just as bad as the first. I don’t see how it is possible to see who started the comments, since they have been going on and on (at least) since the beginning of nationalism. To “rise above the petty bickering and do what is right” sounds like a great idea, but is rather idealistic.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

No? How do you know? You're a psychic?

prior to no WMD's being found

the WORLD thought he had them, france russia and germany didnt want to fight

so we did it for them

and now they try to get moral highground

its all bullshit

if there was no global concensous on this , WTF are there like 21 UN sanctions against iraq?

That's false. Dunno about the others, but french intelligence didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.

France, Russia and Germany didn't want the US to fight Iraq, either, for the same reason that a grown man doesn't pick on little kids. It's not a fight, it's a beating. France and Germany, at least, HAVE the moral highground (certainly not Russia that is more than happy to slaughter Chechens under the guise of the GWOT).

First, Excellent post. It's good to see a well-thought-out response. Though, we could argue semantics for hours I think. "Hegemony"? C'mon now.

1. There are less wars and less people dying in wars, statistically. The reason is because during the Cold War there were two massive Superpowers that kept everyone else in line. Now there is a single Superpower, still trying to keep the peace, fight off the crazies (Iran, North Korea, and Iraq), and establish an international system of commerce and diplomacy (granted US Diplomacy has suffered many setbacks under the Bush Administration).

2. There is more wealth and more jobs now, all across the world, than ever before, due to globalization and free-trade. You are 100% correct that the divide between rich and poor is growing, but not being the Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Middle Class isn't being destroyed. The Rich are simply getting far richer, far faster than every other economic class. I'll assume that you don't believe in trickle-down economics and allow that you and I will simply disagree about whether or not this is a good thing. But the poor today are better off than they were yesterday due to globalization and NOT big-socialist-government. Socialism is a threat to globalization and free-trade.

3. Communism is a threat to political liberties and political equality. Socialism is a threat to economic liberty and social equity, while offering (may I say misguided?) idealists their hope of economic and social equality, which I believe to be unnatural, impossible, and undesirable.

4. Compassion, Liberty, and Democracy are the best weapons we have to fight religious fanaticism. It will take decades, but we will win the war on terror; and despite what the liberal media says, the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they were before, in terms of their future. The change they have be forced to experience has been violent and terrible, but it is worth it. To who? Who am I to judge? Well, we all have to make these judgments independently. I'm satisfied with us disagreeing here.

I find class-envy and class-struggle to be repugnant. I doubt we'll find a middle ground here.

I acknowledge that the United States does still support dictators and that individuals have been harmed by globalization and free trade. However, I believe that Globalization and Free Trade have helped millions more than they have harmed, that they are necessary to the spread of civil, political, and economic freedoms around the world, and that it will lead to a better world for all in the future.

Am I am optimist? Yes, though a cautious one. I expect setbacks and I expect problems. It is time the world put aside the ramblings of Hegel and Marx and realized that history cannot be guided by utopian theories. All we can do is define what is good and work toward promoting it and to define what is bad and work toward destroying it.

You and I define these terms differently, I would guess, and therefore have little room to compromise.

Not a psychic. I just study history and current events as recorded by historians and journalists across the globe. I read books and newspapers, which (in case you are wondering) is where they hide facts and information.

Padre,

Hatred is the emotion of the uneducated, unenlightened and the miserable.

Unfortunately, many people on this planet are uneducated, unenlightened and miserable.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

Okay Glock, the things you believe that I envy about the U.S. Lets take it right from the start.

Maybe not, since most of you people remind me of some unrealistic weird Disney figures with a big strange smile on your faces.
Not better than many EU countries per capita.
You have less than we have with your fascist government and antisocial society, but I guess you are not aware of that since you are the most naive people on the earth.
Since the U.S is the highcastle of hypocrisy I have always looked at you as very weak.
If you mean diversity of government, then absolutely not. The only outcome of that is lack of freedom and justice.
Same as economy.
Yes, not much of that here in Europe.
Okay, you got me there.
LOL! Or lack thereof.
Only if I wanted to get fat.
Could be, looks like fun.
Soccer is football.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

See, you took a perfectly good set of statements and had to ruin it with this kind of bullshit.

Why?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Because American Football is too difficult for people in Denmark? lol or, because it was poorly named. either could be true.

Okay, Ill take away the last statement for you, thats what a nice guy I am.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I found it amusing that Wally thought NASCAR could be fun.

IMHO, NASCAR more than anything else, embodies the popular European stereo types of Americans that Walleroo enjoys talking about.


I can't wait for the new Will Ferrel comedy on nascar, "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby."

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

Thank you, yours is also well thought out, and you are right about semantics.

I don’t know if keeping “everyone else in line” was their major concern. In fact, it appeared that if an opportunity arose, a proxy war would be engaged. For example, sometime before or after a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan (installed by the Soviet intelligence, I believe) asked for troops to quell a growing insurgency, the CIA saw an opportunity to drain U.S.S.R. resources. The Soviets continued to pump troops and equipment into the region while the CIA continued to pump funds and training into the mujahideen (via Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI). Sometimes a country’s agenda involves starting or intensifying a war, not preventing one.

One has to consider that because there are no more rival superpowers, perhaps, there is no need for such proxy wars that would add to those statistics. For example, Korea and Vietnam. Also, could I see these statistics that you are referring to? It would be a difficult job to compile all the resources needed to determine how many declared and undeclared wars are occurring and the casualties caused by them; I hope you understand my skepticism on the matter.

Socialism is indeed a threat to corporate globalization and free trade. It depends on what socialism you are referring to though, when you say the poor are better off under IMF, World Bank, and WTO policies. Theoretically, socialism could be used to protect poorer members of a nation, citizens that would have difficulty in business with such a global market. On the other hand, theoretically, free trade would be used for development and progress that would lead to greater prosperity for those poorer members. Neither side is completely true, of course. It is clear, though, that deregulation of an economy is not always beneficial to people (or, at least, deregulation favorable to certain businesses). For example, millions of farmers in Southern America have found themselves unable to compete with the cheap grains being imported from our markets. Then there are the unemployed in America, those who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to newly opened labor markets. Some poor people are better off, not all.

I don’t know much about economics in general, so trickle-down economics is new to me (although the name seems to be self-explanatory). I hope to learn a lot more about these issues in the next few years though, as I’ll be studying political economy. However, I do enjoy reading and I have heard several accounts of the problems of corporate free trade. A Movement of Movements is an excellent picture of how, despite the rhetoric of development and progress, many people are actually being harmed by IMF, WTO, and World Bank policies.

Historical communism and historical socialism fit those descriptions well, but the theories were good (idealistic, as you say, though). But just as Soviet communism didn’t follow the complete theories of Karl Marx, American capitalism hasn’t followed the complete theories of Adam Smith. Our economic system is not the greatest and best one ever applied to reality – I hope someday (soon) that an alternative to our corporate capitalism will begin to creep its way into the public conscious. I agree that economic and social equality are unnatural, impossible, and undesirable for human civilization; I don’t believe human suffering is a necessary part of that degree of inequality though. I don’t advocate equal wealth to all and equal social standing to all, but I believe that everyone should have the right to freedom from economic and social oppression. In the capitalist world today, some people are in the gutter with no way out.

These arbitrarily capitalized words are probably not the best weapons. They are useful rhetorically, but unless we truly begin to apply them in all of our dealings, just telling a terrorist that he will get all these things will probably have no effect. Of course, to begin to apply compassion, liberty, and democracy in all of its dealings, the government would require a whole new agenda. Perhaps it could start by cleaning up Africa, ridding the world of illiteracy and hunger, and applying its resources to fighting cancers and HIV/AIDS.

As for people in Iraq and Afghanistan being better off, I won’t argue that some are better off. Perhaps in a few years, though, those sides will switch again, and those better off now will be in trouble. Both countries have witnessed violence for so long now, I don’t think many of them expected anything great from an American-style “liberation.” I won’t try to deny you your right to make the judgment “it is worth it;” I’m just curious how you would convince an ordinary Iraqi of that. You may have to wait until they finish barricading their neighborhood or cleaning their AK though, several years after “Mission Accomplished” was declared.

I don’t really believe in class-envy; I liken it to the argument found in this thread that “Europe doesn’t like us because we are more powerful.” And what about class-struggle do you find repugnant? The idea itself, or that idea used as justification for rebellions and protests and such? I fully believe in class inequalities, and I’m sympathetic to movements (violent or not) that wish to lessen the degree of those inequalities.

Maybe it has helped more than it has harmed, but I don’t like the use of utilitarianism to justify problems. I’m not calling for a scrapping of the entire globalization effort – that is unrealistic. I don’t understand why some of its problems can’t be redressed while it continues to help others, though. We can hope that these policies will lead to a better world – they seem to setting the groundwork for a world government, which could be the greatest or worst thing to ever happen to mankind.

Hegel and Marx both have very good ideas, and all of their works can’t be piled together under “utopian theories.” Your following statement, though, is perhaps one of the best I’ve seen on this board in my short time here. Hopefully we can influence each other’s opinion of what is “good” and what is “bad.”

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Just to elaborate on what you are saying.

It has been suggested that America gave the Soviets a quagmire in Afghanistan because the Soviets gave America a quagmire in Vietnam.

Of course, America's intentions in Vietnam was to protect and support the South Vietnamese Democrats by containing North Vietnamese Communists.

Where as the Soviets' intentions in Afghanistan was to simply enlarge the boundaries of the Soviet Union.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.