Dexi Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 US policy is to build an empire...the british did it on a grand scale until the cash ran out now the US are able to do the same due to their complete dominance in weapons technology,a self righteous christian fundamentalist govt. and voters with little understanding of foreign affairs...its back to the bad old days of colonialism and puppet regimes....In terms of Iraq it could be a very long time before US troops leave if ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Unfortunately because of the political machines, it is impossible for anybody else to get nominated let alone get elected. Too bad another party can not be formed that runs on just the principle of honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted July 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Honesty and integrity don't make money, or so it seems.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Yanks have traditionally trusted their government. Don't ask me why. Wilson got the US into WWI, when the US really had nothing to gain from it and no urgent reason for entering it. (Yes, Americans had died in British ships that were torpedoed. But they had all been warned repeatedly about the danger of taking passage on ships - usually carrying munitions in their hold- that sailed unescorted into the war zone.) FDR virtually forced Imperial Japan to attack the US by cutting off their oil supplies - which he knew would bring on war. Then he pretended he was shocked when Pearl happened. JFK gave his support to removing the Diem government from power in South Vietnam, which led to a series of military governments and eventually brought the US into the war. And now Iraq? Maybe Iran to??? It's past time for Americans to stop believing their politicians are looking out for the people's best interests. Not likely to happen though ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 The fact is, we had NO good reason to go into Afghanistan... Really? You would have left the Taliban and their terrorist visitors alone there to continue on with their agenda uninterrupted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 US policy is to build an empire...the british did it on a grand scale until the cash ran out now the US are able to do the same... This is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 rogeyam said [color:red]"You would have left the Taliban and their terrorist visitors alone there to continue on with their agenda uninterrupted?"[/color] When about 180 tons of U.S. made weapons and ammunition a day that were entering the war torn country of Afghanastan, the USA chcicken hawks approved whole heartedly such transactions because some of the jingle generally ened up in their pockets. When the CentGas never got built which was suppose to cross Afghanastain, the money grubbing chicken hawks must have been pissed off. When Clinton, in 1998, launched cruise missiles, hoping to get Bin Laden, that tactic was probably the best move any President could have made. Too bad the attack didn't get Bin Laden, if it had, Clinton would be labeled a hero. You got to look at the main country that has been helping Afghanastain, and that is Pakistan. Why don't the Chicken hawks bomb them back to the 12th century? The reason: it is all about money, control and oil. As far as invading Afghanastain, that stupid event will probably go down in history as a dark moment in USA history. Sending in a few commando sniper teams should have been all that was needed to kill one Arab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Very few non-citizens are volunteering. In peace time it used to be a shorter way to become a citizen - 3 years residence instead of 5. But who is going to go to Iraq to save a couple of years now? Pay is actually much better than I ever saw. It has to be to get enough people to volunteer. I think an E-1 (same same OR-1) got $109 in 1968. Now it's closer to $1,000. Conscripts come cheap. I'll asnwer this (what's new right? ) You figure a kid out of high school, with 0 options for decent employment and or education sees what the military offers and goes for it. A minimum wage job pays what after taxes? less that $1000, which you can't live on, no education, and no real chance for advancement. Compare that to $1000 food and lodging, education, job/skill training, money for college when you get out Uni/trade classes while you are in, and it doesn't seem so bad...except for that whole war thing. But that is the price you pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 What the US is using now is a type of economic conscription.The money a soldier earns in Iraq is a lot better than any menial job in the US.... Have to disagree. That has been true since the 80's if not since the 70's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I won't disagree with the assessment of some voters in the U.S. Maybe even most voters. However, I can think you can probably hear the same complaint on here from anyone who is a citizen of any western democracy about their own country's voters. As a member of Brit soccer forums I hear the same thing said about Gordon Brown and tory and labour supporters saying the same things about the average Brit voter who seemingly couldn't be bothered. We even see it on here when the discussion turns to UK politics. Rarely a consensus other than the things are getting worse. The consequences are different because of the status and place of each government is different. I also think what a lot of non Americans don't consider is domestic politics. Understandably so. American foreign policy affects them directly or indirectly. While the American economy has a similar effect, for the most part most non Americans only care what the next president's foreign policy may be and is really indifferent to a certain extent what his domestic policies are because it doesn't affect him. Sometimes you get a candidate who you agree with in terms of foreign policy and not domestic and visa versa. I don't think you can blame some Americans for thinking about their jobs and taking care of their families over what happens in some far off teritory. Its not the wise thing but its what most people think about. Your family, job, etc. things that directly affect every day. What's called 'dinner table' issues to some here. If you're some poor working father of four in Texarkana, TX or south Boston, what the candidate says about taxes and jobs is what you will vote on primarily. I've long heard how unpopular we are in France but the french nominate a guy (Sarkosy) that loves American culture. ??? A lot of the european governments are right of center by local standards. The Aussie government ran partially on a slightly...well anti American is too strong but definitely more detached than the prior government but one of the first things these guys do is make nice with the U.S. and the rhetoric isn't as harsh as you'd think given the sentiment about America of the people that vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.