Well at the moment in Afghanistan, women are forced to wear the veil in much the same way as they were before the war.  In fact, they don't go to school either because if they do the Taliban have said they'd murder them all.

Iraq, which was secularised to the point of women being able to have jobs and veils being largely a matter of private conscience, now sees women also wearing the veil for fear that they'll be attacked by the religious militias who run their neighbourhoods.  Much the same is done for female children who would attend school.

The Kurds, on the other hand, had been essentially independent of the rest of Iraq since the Gulf War.  Their lot is largely unchanged.

If you're going to be the world's policeman then surely your job is to protect the citizens.  In recent times America goes to war and in effect makes things either worse or largely the same while it doesn't lift a finger while acts of genocide are carried out in Europe and Africa.

The Europeans are just as bad, don't get me wrong, but Europeans, unlike Americans, do not go around considering themselves global leaders or the planet's policeman.

The American century is over... America's now little better than China; a regional power that's content to throw its weight around either in crude self-interest or in moments of misguided zeal utterly adrift from the realities of the world we live in.  It's competence suspect, its motives questionable and its aims confused.  

A nation whose government is so morally bankrupt that it does nothing to prevent genocide but is quick to invoke genocide on expedient grounds when it needs to justify its adventurism.

A nation whose government is so inept and misguided that it launches a war in search of fictitious weapons of mass destruction whilst not lifting a finger to prevent other nations actually come up with some of their own.

So, Mr. Analytical,

when exactly were you in Afghanistan last?  I was just there and I assure you that veil wearing was not as mandatory or prevalent as all that. In fact, I spoke to one young man who had a girlfriend who was pregnant and getting an abortion so her family wouldn't find out.   Yes, so she would not be stoned to death (illegally, true, but that is part of why we are there, to stop that shit)... in fact currently there are two or three women Ministers running the country, alongside a double dozen men, a fair ratio compared to some western nations.

As for Iraq? I've never claimed we should be there, or that we were doing good. I merely point out the hypocrasy of pointing out that the US is fighting a war where people don't want us, while suggesting that we SHOULD be fighting some other war where the same shit is going down.


You don't want the US telling other nations that they should, or should NOT do such and such (support terrorists, etc) yet you just called for the US to do something to prevent North Korea from having Nukes.  You don't agree that the US should have stopped the Kurds from being massacred (or gotten justice for the same) yet you hold the Darfour situation over our heads like we are carrying the blood stained knives.

Again, you want peace in Darfour? Fine, you pick up a gun and go to Africa. I'm a little busy in the Middle East... or should I point out that Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism owes a LOT of it popularity to the British Colonial Empire?

Actually it depends where in Afghanistan you were.  If you were in Kabul then I understand that things are comparatively liberal there.  But the rest of the country?  By all accounts I've read, the outlying provinces are far less photogenically liberal.  This isn't uncommon though, there's the same problem in Palestine.  The right-wingers come in, the hair goes under cover.

Absolutely I claim you shouldn't be in Iraq but you should be in other places.  That's because I think that the US should have committed itself, post-Cold War to peacekeeping and an ethical foreign policy.  The Americans have no business being in Iraq but they have every reason to be in Darfur.

Darfur and Somalia are absolutely on the US's conscience because it had the power to stop them but instead it does and continues to do nothing.  Europe, of course, is no better but Europe doesn't call itself the world's policeman or a leader.

I'm a realist, I have come to terms with the greed and amorality of international politics.  But America has explicitly set itself apart from that and the guy who posted a rant explicitly pointed to the fact that the US is a global leader.  If you guys want to walk in Woodrow Wilson's shoes and lead the world then do so because at the moment you're adventurist thugs who don't want to risk the blood of a single US serviceman to prevent genocide.

As for the British Colonial Empire, firstly, what the fuck do I care?  I wrote a long post in this very thread about how much this country sucks.  Secondly, actually British colonies by and large have a better history of wealth and respect for human rights than those of a lot of other colonial powers (Belgium being the worst as evidenced by central Africa).  I know that in America you guys take insults to your country personally, but by and large in the UK we just don't give a fuck.  So you can talk about the hideous history of colonial British oppression all you want and I'll most likely agree with you before asking you why you've changed the subject and pointing out that we were actually talking about America.

My brother spent nearly two years in Afghanistan, while in the us army. He said that very few girls were wearing veils or headdresses. Things have improved in Afghanistan, no thanks to the rest of the world.

Now I'm sick of the rest of the world pissing and moaning about us not helping Darfur or elsewhere. In their own words we are not the "leader". If so why the hell do they always expect us to do something?

quit your bitching and get off your pansy- ass and do something about yourself, or, shut the hell up.

We can't be everywhere.

Got your back, Pika...


See, he makes the ultimate point that I was making when I mentioned Guantanimo. Y'all tell us you want us to do this, but not that. But no matter what, don't make us do any of the work or suffer any of the consequences.

Why is it that in Darfur, it would be OK for the US to get involved, but it wasn't OK in Iraq?  If it's not OK to bomb from 40,000 feet (Serbia, etc.), and it's not OK to invade (Iraq, etc.), then just what the hell do you want us to do in the Sudan, write a nasty letter?  Wait, we have the UN for that.

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalbased largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.

Are you serious?  I mean, are you implying that we would not have helped? Or are you saying that we never were needed in the first place?  Is it now irrelevant? How nice for you in 2006 to make an assessment like that.  It's amazing that nobody else thought that in 1950, 1960, 1970, or 1980.  I do agree it became irrelevant in 1989. How do you think that happened, luck?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you're going to be the world's policeman then surely your job is to protect the citizens. In recent times America goes to war and in effect makes things either worse or largely the same while it doesn't lift a finger while acts of genocide are carried out in Europe and Africa.

This is an interesting assertion. It seems to imply that you'd be OK with the use of American power, as long as it was on your terms and under your direction. Well, move here, run for office, and then you could do the job. Or you could just convince the powers that be in your realms to pick up the slack.  What's England doing in whatever place you think America should be?  Oh, you don't have the resources...I see...

So what this is really about is that we have the resources but we act in a way you don't like. Tough shit, get your own stuff, fuckface. Isolationism?  Are you fucking kidding me?  I just said part of me would love to, but we can't – I even gave two reasons why we can't right now.  Oh yeah, there it is, right in the fucking text:

Quote from: James J. SkachProblem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.

And I don't think "you need us more than we need you."  I honestly don't give a shit if you need us or not. So take your isolationist straw man and shove it up your tight British ass.

Then admit that you're not the global leaders and you have no moral authority and no interest in doing the right thing on the international stage.

The problem is that the American government isn't willing to do any of those things and as a result Darfur proves them to be hypocritical expedient scumbags who are little more than regional strongmen using force to suit their own self-serving needs.

America's no better than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese of any other nation that used force to suit its own needs.  My problem is with the fact that America (and the OP) seemingly don't recognise this.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, he makes the ultimate point that I was making when I mentioned Guantanimo. Y'all tell us you want us to do this, but not that. But no matter what, don't make us do any of the work or suffer any of the consequences.

  In Guantanamo, the whole world wants you to put these people up for trial and release them if they're found innocent.  It also wants you to stop torturing people or giving people to other states in order to be tortured because it's wrong.

  Nobody asked you to start interning people who were picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and then throw them in prison and torture them for years simply because they had a foreign passport.  This is all you guys.  Stop it.  There's no hypocrisy, no laziness.  Stop.

QuoteWhy is it that in Darfur, it would be OK for the US to get involved, but it wasn't OK in Iraq?  If it's not OK to bomb from 40,000 feet (Serbia, etc.), and it's not OK to invade (Iraq, etc.), then just what the hell do you want us to do in the Sudan, write a nasty letter?  Wait, we have the UN for that.

  Because it's okay to move into a country where the government is butchering its own people by the thousands, but it's not okay to move into a country because you think there might be weapons of mass destruction there and in fact there aren't, which is what everyone was telling you.

  Meanwhile, when Saddam WAS gassing his own population.  You guys did nothing, in fact, I seem to remember that your current SoD was the guy selling the chemicals.

  In Sudan you could, put a load of infantrymen out to guard the refugee camps.  So that next time the genocidal madmen turn up they'll have to deal with soldiers and not unarmed starving civilians.

QuoteThis is an interesting assertion. It seems to imply that you'd be OK with the use of American power, as long as it was on your terms and under your direction. Well, move here, run for office, and then you could do the job. Or you could just convince the powers that be in your realms to pick up the slack.  What's England doing in whatever place you think America should be?  Oh, you don't have the resources...I see...

  Again... attacking the country I live in gets you nowhere.  I'm the first to say that this country's foreign policy is ethically bankrupt and strategically braindead.

  I think the US should use its considerable power to actually make the world a better place.  As opposed to using it out of greed and stupidity and then TRYING to argue that you did it in order to make the world a better place.

Quoteup your tight British ass.

Well I'm not British and I'll thank you for not thinking about my arse.

Quote from: James J SkachYou don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us?  Fine, take over your own protection.

Speaking as an Australian, we do in fact have a Defence Force, and it's quite capable of defending us from likely adversaries. The only time we've had to expand it dramatically is one occasion - when Japan was coming. Turns out they were never planning to invade anyway, so we needn't have bothered. All the other times we've had to expand our military, it was to fight a war at the behest of an imperial master - the UK in WWI and WWII, the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq. While it was certainly worth fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and it was in principle worth fighting the Communists, by associating our war effort with the USA we ensured we'd lose along with them. Should have pulled out of Vietnam about 1968 when we realised the USA was fucking it up hopelessly. Same in Iraq.

So I'm entirely content for the USA to dissassociate itself with Australia in terms of defence. We can do well enough by ourselves. Thanks, bye.

Quote from: James J SkachDon't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back.  Oh...wait...you don't want them?  Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.

Only one Australian citizen remains at Guatanamo. To my shame, our Australian government, subservient to the US government, does not ask for him back. To the USA's credit, every country which has asked for them back (Britain, France, Afghanistan) has got them back. If it were up to me, I'd take the guy back.

Quote from: James J SkachI'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it.  Problem is, we can't.  Too many threats from too many corners, for one.  For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.

So you'll withdraw if we want you to... but you won't withdraw. Rightyo. And you're doing all this for our own good. Really. It's entirely unselfish. Ah, the generosity of empires! Bringing civilisation and coca-cola to the world! Thanks ever so much.

Quote from: James J SkachLastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources?  You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD.

It always helps to read the articles you quote, and read some more, too.

Quote from: The EconomistSince 1995 almost 60% of the cumulative growth in world output has come from America, nearly twice America's share of world GDP

Despite its name, "Gross Domestic Product" does not reflect actual "products". For example, if I buy a house this week for $200,000 and sell it next week for $220,000, I have added $20,000 to the GDP. Chances are, I've also added $20,000 to net debt, as well. So while I've added $20,000 to float around in the economy, in adding $20,000 of debt, I've also created a drain on the economy, too. A lot of the US GDP growth comes from debt-burdened growth. Two large companies merge, and in buying each-other's stock, load up on debt. So we get one huge company with a huge debt. But the GDP went up! So a rise in GDP does not necessarily mean that anyone's better off. The article mentions this obliquely, noting,

Quote from: The EconomistIn the past three years almost 3m jobs have been lost in American manufacturing, one out of six in that sector.

So your economy is growing, but people are losing jobs. A few people are getting richer, but at the cost of millions getting poorer. And this is the model you propose the world should follow? No, thanks.

The article mentions this large debt burden in the USA. World's largest debtor now. And a lot of the debt is to foreign countries. That's the reason the article is saying that the world's growth has to catch up with the USA's - because otherwise, US growth will collapse. Other countries have to grow their economies, increasing imports from the USA - or the USA is fucked. The USA is like a shopkeeper who's taken out mortgages on his shop - five, from five different banks - and is now shitting himself, and begging his neighbours to shop from him. Because if they don't, then when the debts are called in, he's going to lose the lot.

So the USA has bought great GDP growth at the cost of great economic insecurity. And of course that growth has gone to the already wealthy, not to the middle-classed or poor. The NY Times notes that,

Quote from: NY TimesThe median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation... As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s... At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.

So the growth in wealth has gone to the already-rich. Not much to cheer about from the perspective of the whole country.

US Today tells us that

Quote from: USA TodayAverage family incomes fell in the USA from 2001 to 2004... The decline — the first since 1989-92 — was accompanied by the smallest increase in net worth in that period.

...the Fed said the median net worth of the bottom 40% of families declined, while those at the top saw gains...

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, says job growth and incomes have been picking up since the survey period. But the report provides more troubling evidence of a rising gap in wealth in the USA.

"The household balance sheet is in good shape, better shape today ... but it's not improved for everybody. It's improved for the people in the top distribution of income and wealth," he says...

There was some good news in the report. Minorities, who have long lagged behind whites in income, saw healthier gains. Homeownership rates rose. Still, minority income remains much lower, about 60% of whites.

So your rich are getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middle-classes stagnating or dropping back. Meanwhile, blacks remain poor, with less than two-thirds the income of whites. Classism and racism - this is the model the world should follow? What, you think we don't have classism and racism of our own already?

Secondly, you're assuming that any lack of growth in other countries is due simply to their own laziness. In fact, across the developing world, stagnant economic growth is due to the liberal globalisation economic policies forced on them by the EU, USA, and IMF. The developing countries lack the financial and educational resources to enter manufacturing on a globally-significant scale. So they focus on commodities, such as coffee, cocoa, nuts for margarine oil and so on. The modern liberal economy encourages monopolies of large multinationals. Their buying power means that they can buy entire countries' crops. So when Ghana, for example, devotes 40% of its agricultural land to producing nuts for export to the EU to make margarine (as it does), the slightest dip in world prices of nuts can ruin hundreds of thousands of lives; if the company buying them decides to gouge a lower price, they can do so, by threatening to stop buying at all. That 40% of Ghana's farmers can't live on nuts, after all.

By price supports and subsidies to their own farmers, the EU and USA keep world prices low. Price support is when the government says, "okay, farmer, I see that your cost of production is $150 a tonne for wheat. We'll guarantee that price. So if you want to sell it for $120 a tonne, we'll make up the other $30 a tonne."

So this guarantees a certain low price. US and EU farmers can compete on the global market in absolute security. They can offer the lowest price without worrying about making a financial loss.

Some perspective here. In the USA or EU, a farmer may own 1,000 hectares, and with tractor, combine harvester, and chemicals, get a yield of 9.4 tonnes/hectare of maize (corn); he has 9,400 tonnes to sell at that minimum price of $150 a tonne. In Africa, a farmer may own two or three hectares, and get a yield of 1 or at best 2 tonnes/hectare, and so have 2-6 tonnes to sell. So $150 a tonne isn't going to keep him going for too long. He needs a price more like $300 a tonne to be able to afford what he and his family need in the local economy. But he can't get that price, because $150 a tonne is the price on the world market.

Without US and EU price supports and other subsidies, American and European farmers would be forced to either lower their prices, causing them to sell up their land and find new professions, or raise their prices.

In the old days, Ghana or whichever country wanted to grow its local production would simply throw a tariff on the imports. "Imported grain, 100% tariff. So if it costs $150 on the world market, it'll cost $300 here. No the locals can sell for $290 a tonne, and do well. Plus the government gets some revenue from the tariffs, and can use this revenue to spend on education, etc."

But the modern liberal global economy doesn't allow that. Or rather, the EU and US don't allow it. The IMF uses the developing world's loans to ensure a liberal economy free of tariffs in the developing countries. Then the EU, US - and Japan and China, by the way - use subsidies, price supports, and their own tariffs, to ensure that their $10 or $20 an hour workers can compete with the developing world's $2 a day workers.

So perhaps the rest of the world's lack of great economic growth has something to do with these things. There's an old racist joke, "How do you stop a nigger from drowning? Take your foot off his neck." We might say, "How do you stop a developing country from collapsing? Take your foot off his neck."

They don't have poor economic growth despite US and EU growth and policies; they have it because of EU and US policies - and China and Japan.

Quote from: James J SkachI think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?

Though you meant the last humorously, it says a lot. It shows something else the world dislikes about the USA - its ignorance of the world. Now, it's certainly true that (for example) Japanese and Chinese are just as ignorant about the rest of the world as Americans. But American ignorance is loud, because of their dominance of the world media. So we notice it more. If you stand on a soapbox naked in the middle of the public square waving your cock in the air, then don't be surprised when people look at you.

Edit: I should like to separate myself from Mr. Analytical's communist comments in this thread. Criticising what the US has done wrong should not stop us from praising what they have done right. The USA has absolutely been a force for much good in the world. If the USA has been slack in places like Somalia or Rwanda, well then that's simply because it's what the population of the whole Western world wanted. The Red Cross, Medicin Sans Frontieres and similar organisations bravely work in these places, and always require money and volunteers. Simply throwing troops at the place doesn't always help. You can help if you wish. It's insulting to the people of these countries to pay them no care, except for using them as a rhetorical stick to beat the USA with. Show you care for these places by helping them as best you can, rather than simply bitching at the USA for not helping them.

Quote from: Mr. AnalIn Guantanamo, the whole world wants you to put these people up for trial and release them if they're found innocent. It also wants you to stop torturing people or giving people to other states in order to be tortured because it's wrong.

Nobody asked you to start interning people who were picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and then throw them in prison and torture them for years simply because they had a foreign passport. This is all you guys.

You're fucking kidding me, right? The whole world wants?  Go fuck yourself.  Now you're going to tell us how to do things? Besides, take you're ill-informed rhetoric elsewhere.  They've all been given at least one military review. If I'm not mistaken, most have been given at least three.  Many have been released, either because the evidence didn't support keeping them, or they were deemed safe to release.  Don't think they aren't getting a fair shake. And to imply that they were just walking along minding their own business, and the eeeevil amerikans came along and picked them up for the hell of it is just fucking ludicrous.

Quote from: Mr. AnalBecause it's okay to move into a country where the government is butchering its own people by the thousands, but it's not okay to move into a country because you think there might be weapons of mass destruction there and in fact there aren't, which is what everyone was telling you.

A) In your opinion.  B) Do I need to point out how many people around the world believed he had the WMD? I hardly think everyone was telling us differently. Did you know that most of the western world also agreed that Iraq was a Great/Moderate Danger? Let's see, Britain, 85%; France, 67%; Germany, 82%. And that's not even the best quote:

Quote from: Pew Global AttitudesMajorities in Great Britain, Germany and France also agree with Americans that the best way to deal with Saddam is to remove him from power rather than to just disarm him.

So stop with the 20/20 hindsight. Please, stop.

Quote from: Mr. AnalIn Sudan you could, put a load of infantrymen out to guard the refugee camps. So that next time the genocidal madmen turn up they'll have to deal with soldiers and not unarmed starving civilians.

So could you. Why is it always "America needs to do this"? If we're not the world leader, then do it yourself. Nothing is stopping Britain – except that at the moment you're sad cowards who don't want to risk the blood of a single British serviceman to prevent genocide.

Quote from: Mr. AnalAmerica's no better than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese of any other nation that used force to suit its own needs. My problem is with the fact that America (and the OP) seemingly don't recognise this.

You and I can agree, I think, on one thing. The requirements for the US going abroad should involve American interests. So you could say that America is no worse than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese or any other nation that uses force to suit its own need.  My problem is with the fact that those other countries (and Mr. Anal) seemingly don't recognize this.

Quote from: JimBobOzSpeaking as an Australian, we do in fact have a Defence Force, and it's quite capable of defending us from likely adversaries. The only time we've had to expand it dramatically is one occasion - when Japan was coming. Turns out they were never planning to invade anyway, so we needn't have bothered. All the other times we've had to expand our military, it was to fight a war at the behest of an imperial master - the UK in WWI and WWII, the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq. While it was certainly worth fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and it was in principle worth fighting the Communists, by associating our war effort with the USA we ensured we'd lose along with them. Should have pulled out of Vietnam about 1968 when we realised the USA was fucking it up hopelessly. Same in Iraq.

So I'm entirely content for the USA to dissassociate itself with Australia in terms of defence. We can do well enough by ourselves. Thanks, bye.

Australia is the only country in the world that has been with America in every war we've fought.  I've not no gripe with Australia - not even those who oppose us. They've proven time and time again to be a good friend, both when they agree with us and when they don't. I'd be willing to bet that Australia is light years ahead of the EU in self defence - goodonyamate.
 

Quote from: JimBobOzOnly one Australian citizen remains at Guatanamo. To my shame, our Australian government, subservient to the US government, does not ask for him back. To the USA's credit, every country which has asked for them back (Britain, France, Afghanistan) has got them back. If it were up to me, I'd take the guy back.

And if it were up to me, you'd get him back.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you'll withdraw if we want you to... but you won't withdraw. Rightyo. And you're doing all this for our own good. Really. It's entirely unselfish. Ah, the generosity of empires! Bringing civilisation and coca-cola to the world! Thanks ever so much.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. We do things for selfish reasons. We go to the Middle East so the oil will flow; we defeat the Nazis so we don't have to worry about them attacking the homeland; ditto the Nipponese. We participate in the UN because we'd really actually like to avoid war.  But that place is an ineffective cesspool, so it rarely works. What I'm saying is that we'd like nothing more than to relax on Sunday and watch an American football game than to be about in the world.  But our security is now at risk, and we'll do what we have to. And freeing people is not a bad by-product.

 

Quote from: JimBobOzIt always helps to read the articles you quote, and read some more, too.

I did, it was a rant, not an economic debate, but if you'd like, well, here we go.

Quote from: JimBobOzDespite its name, "Gross Domestic Product" does not reflect actual "products". For example, if I buy a house this week for $200,000 and sell it next week for $220,000, I have added $20,000 to the GDP. Chances are, I've also added $20,000 to net debt, as well. So while I've added $20,000 to float around in the economy, in adding $20,000 of debt, I've also created a drain on the economy, too. A lot of the US GDP growth comes from debt-burdened growth. Two large companies merge, and in buying each-other's stock, load up on debt. So we get one huge company with a huge debt. But the GDP went up! So a rise in GDP does not necessarily mean that anyone's better off. The article mentions this obliquely, noting,

So your economy is growing, but people are losing jobs. A few people are getting richer, but at the cost of millions getting poorer. And this is the model you propose the world should follow? No, thanks.

I know what GDP is. I also like you're little sleight-of-hand (I want a check at DC 17!). "Chances are," means strawman.

In the last three years, the American economy has added, oh, something like 6 million jobs. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule. Unemployment is, I think, 4.6%, or in that neighborhood. Middle class wages are up, according to the most recent figures I heard, but I didn't catch by how much. Do I think the rest of the world should follow us? I could give a flying fuck. Just leave us to our own devices and we'll leave you to yours. I think socialism is a huge mistake, but I'm not opposed to watching anyone who wants to use it – good luck!

Quote from: JimBobOzSecondly, you're assuming that any lack of growth in other countries is due simply to their own laziness.

I'm not, really.  I think people bust their asses in shitty conditions to make 1/10th of what I make, and I'm just a middle class guy trying to over his nut. I'm reacting to people who think we're evil because we use 25% of the world's resources.  I'm simply saying they get a good return. If they are loaning us the money, don't we pay them interest? If they are buying from us, don't they get goods? If they are selling to us, don't they get paid? And the growth for which America counted 60%, was it worth the debt and the resources for the US to help the world get out of the recession – even if it was for our own selfish reasons?

What I won't do is argue about nut growers in Ghana – not now – except to say that I hate our agricultural policy as well, and I vote to change it every year. But I won't be a hypocrite and say it's not my policy.

Quote from: JimBobOzSome perspective here. In the USA or EU, a farmer may own 1,000 hectares, and with tractor, combine harvester, and chemicals, get a yield of 9.4 tonnes/hectare of maize (corn); he has 9,400 tonnes to sell at that minimum price of $150 a tonne. In Africa, a farmer may own two or three hectares, and get a yield of 1 or at best 2 tonnes/hectare, and so have 2-6 tonnes to sell. So $150 a tonne isn't going to keep him going for too long. He needs a price more like $300 a tonne to be able to afford what he and his family need in the local economy. But he can't get that price, because $150 a tonne is the price on the world market.

Without US and EU price supports and other subsidies, American and European farmers would be forced to either lower their prices, causing them to sell up their land and find new professions, or raise their prices.

Look, this is basic economy of scale.  I get it, I really do. And I agree that anything the US government does to undercut price is bad. But if the price difference is based solely on the difference in scale, then I'm not buying it – no pun intended. But most of my ire isn't directed at the third-world countries. Again, I'm answering a charge of disproportionate use of resources with the perspective of what the world gets in return.

What really pisses me off is when they then pay farmers not to harvest the shit.

Since old Skach has ignored 9/10th of what I wrote, it seems pointless to respond to him. In essence, for other readers, I would emphasise:

• Growth doesn't mean much to most people, if they're not going some of it.
• Most people in the USA are not getting some of the growth.
• This growth of the USA is based not on actual productivity, but on financial jiggery-pokery, and unsustainable debt.
• Because it's based on debt, it's very fragile and unstable; and while the mass of people aren't getting the growth, they'll sure as hell get the drop if the debt bubble bursts.
• This growth, such as it is, can occur only because of exploitative trade and economic relations between the West and the developing world.
• And that's why the developing world doesn't like the West much.
• The USA is the leader of the Western world, and is the loudest representative of it, so it gets the bulk of the hatred of the developing world. The EU, Japan and to a lesser extent China are just as responsible for the developing world's misery, and the developing world is most responsible itself; but the USA is the most prominent member, so it gets most of the anger, and anyway who wants to blame themselves for their troubles? Not the USA or EU, certainly not (say) Zimbabwe.

And that's one of the many reasons the world hates the USA. That, and the random invasions of countries recently. That always makes people angry. Plus, nobody likes a puffed-up, boastful, self-righteous person - and the USA's got that in spades.

That Skach didn't read it is no great surprise. People tend not to read online, they scan. With the scan, they pick up a few key words, and fill in the blanks with their own prejudices, the wreckage of previous similar conversations, etc. It's one reason pdfs will never replace books - and I say that as a guy who made a respectable amount of money from selling rpg pdfs.

Ooooh.  Borrowing a little bit from the GW playbook eh?  News flash bucko:  6 million jobs is a useless fucking number when you're not taking into account the quality and pay level of those jobs.  

You know where that job growth is coming from?  Service jobs.  Shitty minimum wage jobs like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, or taking orders at McDonalds.  Meanwhile all the indistry jobs that were once the bread and butter of the middle and lower classes are being shipped overseas.  Now we're even seeing white collar jobs like IT and call center work being outsourced to India and Bangladesh.

And as for your claim about the national debt, well, I don't even know where the fuck you got that.  The national debt has been rising daily for the last year.  And expect it to keep rising, considering they just raised the debt cieling back in March.

Mr. A...

You seemed to miss the thrust of my point.  You see, I don't personally give a flying rat fuck if you are British or American or Darfurian... you condemn an action on the one hand, and demand it on the other.  Hypocrasy, and it is fucking annoying as shit.

As far as I know Darfur is completely without American involvement, currently or historically that leads up to the massacres there.  We had business in Iraq, we were partly responsible even for what was going on in Iraq.  As flimsy as our excuses for this invasion, ,as weak as our justification for going we have even LESS fucking reason to intervene in Darfur, other than the fact that YOU want it, as you didn't want Iraq.  Bullshit. We use our military as we see fit, you use yours as you see fit.  You don't like Darfur? Fine, lobby YOUR military to intervene. Fucking grab a gun and a plane ticket and go yourself if you have the balls.  


As for the situation in Afghanistan: They were wearing veils in the remote Pashtun regions long before the taliban came to power, who the fuck do you think the Taliban tapped for their popular support? That sort of cultural change takes a long time.  So, no, we haven't made things worse by any measure.

Quote from: James J SkachThey've all been given at least one military review. If I'm not mistaken, most have been given at least three.

Ah... that makes it alright then.  My apologies, let the torture continue.

QuoteAnd to imply that they were just walking along minding their own business, and the eeeevil amerikans came along and picked them up for the hell of it is just fucking ludicrous.

  Actually, for a lot of them that's EXACTLY what happened.  Most of the inmates of the Guantanamo camp weren't picked up by US soldiers but by Pakistani or Northern Alliance types.  Many of the people picked up were picked up on the assumption that they were spies because they had foreign passports.  In the case of a UK detainee, he was kept in Guantanamo for a couple of years because someone else, under torture, claimed he had seen him with Osama bin Laden.  Only problem was that at that point the guy was in the UK, working in a shop in his local highstreet.

QuoteA) In your opinion.  B) Do I need to point out how many people around the world believed he had the WMD?

  Actually no... not in my opinion.  In fact and in international law.  Even if I accept that loads and loads of people believed he had WMD's 1) most of those people would also have agreed that the UN should have been left time to settle the matter and 2) If you're looking to legitimise the US' s foreign policy then you really don't want to start appealing to what lots of people think.

QuoteSo stop with the 20/20 hindsight. Please, stop.

No hindsight here.  3 million people marched through the streets of London in opposition to the war, all the moderate press favoured giving the UN more time and you just tried to suggest that 85% of people in the UK supported the war.  I even remember being in the War Studies department in the run up to war and the concensus among the staff was that there were no WMD (and if there were it was going to be a couple of decade old mustard gas cannisters) and that the US were being foolish.

Current US opposition to the war can absolutely be chalked up to hindsight seeing as the government bilked you good but not in the rest of the world.

QuoteSo could you. Why is it always "America needs to do this"? If we're not the world leader, then do it yourself. Nothing is stopping Britain – except that at the moment you're sad cowards who don't want to risk the blood of a single British serviceman to prevent genocide.

I agree.  But America are not only morally bankrupt cowards but they're also morally bankrupt cowards who claim to be morally righteous and global leaders.

QuoteMy problem is with the fact that those other countries (and Mr. Anal) seemingly don't recognize this.

  Don't recognise that you're a regional strong-man using force to further its own ends and greasing the wheels with the blood of thousands of innocents?  Oh don't worry... I think the rest of the world realises this.

  The problem is that America sets itself above such concerns.  It thinks of itself as a global leader and a force for good.  This argument is because whereas America SAYS it's a force for good, in reality it really isn't.

Quote from: J ArcaneOoooh.  Borrowing a little bit from the GW playbook eh?  News flash bucko:  6 million jobs is a useless fucking number when you're not taking into account the quality and pay level of those jobs.  

You know where that job growth is coming from?  Service jobs.  Shitty minimum wage jobs like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, or taking orders at McDonalds.  Meanwhile all the indistry jobs that were once the bread and butter of the middle and lower classes are being shipped overseas.  Now we're even seeing white collar jobs like IT and call center work being outsourced to India and Bangladesh.

And as for your claim about the national debt, well, I don't even know where the fuck you got that.  The national debt has been rising daily for the last year.  And expect it to keep rising, considering they just raised the debt cieling back in March.

Unemployment among college grads is 2 percent. The jobs are there, you just have to pay your dues and do the hard work to get them. Nothing is handed to you on a silver platter.