anti american sentiments

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


I understand. I'm sure if everyone was bashing NZ I'd get pretty pissed as well. No wait, we don't get pissed, we protest!

I am glad you understand. No one likes to be constantly critisized and to tell you the truth all it does is make us beat that drum harder and LOUDER.

[Elvellon]

In the 80's and early 90's Americans really were upset that it looked like Japan was going to over take us as the economic world power - but that hasn't materialised and doesn't look like it will in the forseeable future. Now Europe is trying to do the same thing through the use of the Euro. I do think the Euro is in the best interest of Europe and I do think that England not adopting the Euro was in England's best interest - since the pound was so much stronger than most, if not all, of the other European currencies that were replaced by the Euro

About the Euro:

Believe me, the Euro is not part of any European conspiracy to displace the Dollar.
It is something not usually spoken, but the main goal of the Euro is not, (in my view), to create a greater economical integration between European countries (even if indeed it have such a consequence). The real goal is to create a symbol that all peoples inside the Euro zone can chare. It is meant to be a powerful psychological symbol of European integration.



PAX

[Cirdan]

This article in Washington Post op-ed was fairly interesting and applicable to the thread.

If the Euro help unify Europe more, then that can only be a good thing. Robert D. Kaplan is a good author on regional politics and social commentary. His areas of interest include the Balkans, The Middle East, and the Near East. Part of the unification and stabilization of the former Soviet or Warsaw Pact nations is NATO membership. This is seen as a stepping stone to membership in the economic union. This puts some pressure on some otherwise corrupt leadership, to clean up thier act. It is an excellent example of the long term influence of America's influence in the post-WWII period in Europe. While they are acting on their own initiative, it is the idea that peace and properity is more important than nationalistic pride that was the voice of the US policy in the post WWII era.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon


About the Euro:

Believe me, the Euro is not part of any European conspiracy to displace the Dollar.
It is something not usually spoken, but the main goal of the Euro is not, (in my view), to create a greater economical integration between European countries (even if indeed it have such a consequence). The real goal is to create a symbol that all peoples inside the Euro zone can chare. It is meant to be a powerful psychological symbol of European integration.
PAX

The main goal of the Euro is for econiomic reasons, to create a more stable corrency than the individual currencies that at one time existed. I didn't say it was a bad thing. It may or may not displace the dollar - but the European Union is hoping that it will be a contender against the dollar, where as at this point non of the indvidiual currencies could ever hope to be.

[jerseydevil]

As an editor in Tokyo noted, "Imagine how different the reaction to U.S. rejection of the Kyoto treaty would have been if the U.S. had explained the treaty's flaws publicly and made a counterproposal, rather than just saying the treaty wasn't good for the American economy."

The US did explain it's dislike for the Kyoto Treay - they just don't like the answer and still insist on laying most of the responsiblity in the treaty on the US. I am far more concerned with the pollution caused by the midwest coal burning that causes the pollution in NJ than I am about us signing the Kyoto Treaty or what others think about us not being a part of it.

And concercerning the International Criminal Court - the US would be a number one target for other countries just to take action against the US. I am completely against the United States being under a non-elected world wide governing body and that seems to be what is happening slowly.

As stated in the article they can feel that we don't have any need to consult our allies and all these other grievances - but we also have a right not to agree with them and go it alone if we feel the need. We have a right to not sign treaties if it's not in our self interest. I'm sorry if they don't like it - but they're not going to sign anything if it's not in their self interest. The only REASON they are upset by the US not listening to them all the time or signing the treaties they want us to is because that IS IN THEIR self interests.

How much influence on American thinking do they want? I bet they wouldn't be happy unless they were able to DICTATE foreign policy and action to us.

I'm sorry if the other countries don't like that the US looks at their self interests - but maybe they should look at themselves and see howmuch they do that's not in their self interest.

[Elvellon]

I know you didn’t classify it as a bad thing. It’s only that this kind of economical and social issues seem to drag me in.

Like I said, it is my personal view that economical advantages alone would not have been sufficient to the creation of the Euro (it also brings significant potential disadvantages, particularly the inability of member states having their own monetary policy). If they were the only reasons I believe we would be still seeing the European politicians discussing how it could be accomplished or if it should be implemented at all.

Personally, I think any economical gain it may accomplish (and it does indeed accomplishes some) is overshadowed by the psychological impact it have (and I believe European politicians are well aware of it); it is something that is present in every day’s life of millions of Europeans, and remembers them they all belong to the EU. This is especially important if we consider that the (rarely spoken) goal of many European politicians is the eventual creation of a federal state, and that can only be accomplished by creating a European identity first.

While I agree your explanation of the creation of a more stable currency is indeed a valid reason for most member states (if not the only one), it is not so (or at least not that relevant) for the stronger currencies, specially the Mark.

As for being a contender against the Dollar, while it certainly may became so in the future, I see it simply a by-product of the size of European economy, its stability and its growing level of integration.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

While I agree your explanation of the creation of a more stable currency is indeed a valid reason for most member states (if not the only one), it is not so (or at least not that relevant) for the stronger currencies, specially the Mark.

That's why it wasn't in England's best interest to integrate the English Pound into the Euro.

One of the key things that Europe is doing is what America did in 1787 with the Constitution. The US after the Revolution was a set of individual countries that were allied together through the Articles of Confederation. The "national" governement had no way to inforce anything on the states. Each state had it's own currency. New Jersey and Connecticut were massing troops to attack New York. Europe of course is going about it a little slower - but sooner or later - Europe will more than likely be a single country - made up of states - similar to the US. It'll be much tougher for you guys to get there though - you have a lot more history to overcome - a lot more self interest to put aside. Also - your countries have been at war against each other repeatedly until just recently. The colonies never fought against each other - but it was feared we would - and NJ and Connectcut was used as their example.

[Cirdan]

And concercerning the International Criminal Court - the US would be a number one target for other countries just to take action against the US. I am completely against the United States being under a non-elected world wide governing body and that seems to be what is happening slowly.

That is the problem of the perception. If we base our participation of the premise that we will not be judged fairly then why do we then expect others to suject their citizens to be subject to it? Our entire federal judicial system is made up of appointees so it is not an entirely foreign concept. It's not like the International Criminal Court is made up of wild-eyed, american flag-burning mobs. If we don't participate equally then the Slobodan Milosevics of the world go free.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan


That is the problem of the perception. If we base our participation of the premise that we will not be judged fairly then why do we then expect others to suject their citizens to be subject to it? Our entire federal judicial system is made up of appointees so it is not an entirely foreign concept. It's not like the International Criminal Court is made up of wild-eyed, american flag-burning mobs. If we don't participate equally then the Slobodan Milosevics of the world go free.

I don't think others should be subjected to an International Criminal Court. I'm completely against it. Just like I don't think the UN works either - I don't think that the US or anyone should be dictated to by a world governing body. In wars - the winner wins and dictates terms of surrender and so forth.

Oh - and I'm well aware that the US does use these international agents when it serves our interests - I just don't believe in them.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


In wars - the winner wins and dictates terms of surrender and so forth.

That's how Hitler came to power. If the world powers had been less vindictive after WWI it is possible that WWII might not have occurred. The problems between France and Germany were never settled, so there is no certainty about "what ifs."
Wars are not an entirely effective way of resolving disputes. Luckily the United States had a more pacifist approach to post-war dispositions after WWII and was in a position to be magnanomous in victory; being in a relatively intact state economically.

I strongly support the efforts to gobalize the concepts and benefits of democracy, human rights, and justice. I do believe that there should be some restructuring of the UNs governance structure, given the changes in the world political situation since the end of the Cold War.

I do believe it would help our world image to withdraw troops from places like Korea and Japan. There should be some limit to the term that we occupy any region. Some bases seem to exist just because they always have.

I'm not in complete agreement with the article I posted; just thought it was relevant to the thread, I don't think the mainland Chinese have become peace loving and benevolent. There are many changes I would like to see on their part before we take our eyes off on them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan


That's how Hitler came to power. If the world powers had been less vindictive after WWI it is possible that WWII might not have occurred. The problems between France and Germany were never settled, so there is no certainty about "what ifs."
Wars are not an entirely effective way of resolving disputes. Luckily the United States had a more pacifist approach to post-war dispositions after WWII and was in a position to be magnanomous in victory; being in a relatively intact state economically.

I know that is how Hitler came to power. The US was against the Treaty of Versailles that Europe was forcing on Germany. Wilson's 14 Point Program But France and England were looking for revenge. After World War II - we made it a point not to let Europe's mistake be repeated. Chances are - WWII would not have occurred if Europe did not look for revenge and instead took care of the Kaiser and not punish Germany as a whole.

Also - another problem with what occurred with the Versailles Treaty - was that after Europe took this action against Germany - they completely ignored what was going on in Germany. They became very complacent and didn't watch for what was going.

And I agree that wars are not always an effective way to resolve diputes (the first should be negtiations) - but sometimes war is the only way.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


I know that is how Hitler came to power. The US was against the Treaty of Versailles that Europe was forcing on Germany. Wilson's 14 Point Program But France and England were looking for revenge. After World War II - we made it a point not to let Europe's mistake be repeated. Chances are - WWII would not have occurred if Europe did not look for revenge and instead took care of the Kaiser and not punish Germany as a whole.

Also - another problem with what occurred with the Versailles Treaty - was that after Europe took this action against Germany - they completely ignored what was going on in Germany. They became very complacent and didn't watch for what was going.

And I agree that wars are not always an effective way to resolve diputes (the first should be negtiations) - but sometimes war is the only way.

Yeah, it was too bad Wilson was so sick and had so little support at home. It's amazing how pacifist we were during the onset of both wars. It's not like we hadn't been militarily active, but the great wars of Europe was one of the main reasons people fled to America in the 19th century.

Yes, why didn't they pay attention to all those tanks and planes and ships? It makes you wonder what would have become of communism in russia without the heroes of the "great war". Stalin would have just been a murderer instead of a heroic leader.

I liked our position when war was our last resort and not a political tool. I'm still not sure what we did in our last few wars has resolved anything. I would like to think Kuwait is safe and the Balkans stablized. Only time will tell.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I would like to think Kuwait is safe and the Balkans stablized. Only time will tell.

It seems as if the Balkans are safe. But I don't think that Kuwait or anything in the Middle East is safe at the moment. I'm not condoing or condemning attacking Iraq - but I don't trust Iraq and their refusal for weapons inspections at all. I just read today in the paper that Iraq just finished building a rail line from Syria to Baghdad and is having tanks and other weaponary transported into Iraq. Even if this wasn't reported today - I don't trust Saddum Hussein and I think given half a chance - he'd attampt to attack Kuwait again.

[Cirdan]

I think the one thing that weighs against Saddam Hussein is that his goal is more than just Kuwait and his neighbors know it. If it weren't for Turkey and Iran, he would be "doin' the Sauron" all over the place. I'm not sure what's really going on in Syria since daddy Assad died. My guess is they're to Iraq what Austria was to Germany in WWII. They don't want to be invaded so if it came to that they would fold first.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I think the one thing that weighs against Saddam Hussein is that his goal is more than just Kuwait and his neighbors know it. If it weren't for Turkey and Iran, he would be "doin' the Sauron" all over the place. I'm not sure what's really going on in Syria since daddy Assad died. My guess is they're to Iraq what Austria was to Germany in WWII. They don't want to be invaded so if it came to that they would fold first.

I agree. Everyone in the region knows he's a madman I think. The middle east is a power keg and there are no easy answers. I think what it'll boil down to - do we take him out now before he regroups (as it seems he is) or do we wait until he's strong and makes the first move.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I agree. Everyone in the region knows he's a madman I think. The middle east is a power keg and there are no easy answers. I think what it'll boil down to - do we take him out now before he regroups (as it seems he is) or do we wait until he's strong and makes the first move.

Ah yes, the "first strike" issue. I think it was not a great idea to verbalize that position since we pretty much operate on that premise now. We regularly take out Iraqi positions when fire is encountered or the no-fly zone is violated. Does it justify a full scale invasion? That is a tricky one.

I would have to say the justification would have to be more than suspicious activity. If we attacked based on "potential" danger, then that standard could be attached to many other countries and our credibility as a civilized nation would be out the door. He has definitely regrouped by now. I would guess that there are all sorts of underground facilities designed for all sorts of mischief.

He is not an idiot by any means. The invasion of Kuwait was bad communication by the US. We paid him to invade Iran so I think he beleived we were turning a blind eye to his hegemony. He now knows the score and probably learned none too few lessons from Desert Storm.

Defeating an army on the battlefield is sincerely different from subjegating an entire nation. It's not a matter of one man be deposed solving the problem. He is relatively popular and his propaganda is effective on the home front. So a war to eliminate the Iraqi threat would be a war against the population of Iraq. The greatest strategic move we could make is to free ourselves from the crack habit that is oil. Alternative energy should be a defense project. It is our soft underbelly. It was what defeated Germany and Japan; the loss of fuel, the loss of the line of supply will always create vulnerability.

Finding and developing a clean renewable energy source that can completely replace coal and oil is more important than the space program. It's more important than curing cancer. It's more important than Social Security. We have the power to do something to change the future.

The idea that just plumbing for more oil in Alaska is deadly nearsighted. The amount of money it would take to invade and hold Iraq would easily pay for getting some serious technology into the economical range. This doesn't even take into account the savings in the cost in terms of human lives.

As far as terrorism by Iraq, this is a matter of security and intelligence gathering, which is required anyway since there are more source threats than Iraq. This is one area where I believe the castle is more effective than the crusade.

Of couse all this flies out the window if the potential threat becomes actualized. Until we acquire "Minority Report" powers we will not be able to realistically justify any premptive military solution that is a permanent one; namely an all out invasion and complete subjegation of the country. I don't want any part of that kind of genocide. Time is the critical element in this delicate equation.

[jerseydevil]

The problem with that is that we AREN'T reliant on Middle Eastern oil. We get about 5% of our oil from the Middle East. It's Europe, which gets 50+% of it's oil and Japan that gets 70+% from the Middle East that have the problem. We of course indirectly have the problem because of our trade relations and interdependence with those countries The majority of oil we get comes from domestice crude and from South America. Do you know, according to my Hammond Atlas - that the US is second in production of crude oil - second only to Saudi Arabia?

My electricity is generated through renewable energy sources by Green Mountain. Also Green Mountain just built a huge solar farm in southern NJ. Hybrid cars are currently available too - but people have to be willing to buy them. I've seen several around NJ - and the prices are comparable to standard gas powered vehicles - but most people want gas guzzling SUVs. In a year or two more hybrid cars are coming out - they get 50+ miles per a gallon and people don't have to worry about if they try to drive across country if they'll have a problem finding a place to refuel. There are alternative fuels now available - but no stations to supply the fuel - such as hyrdrogen. The old "pug in" electric cars were too ineffecient and also - all they did was transfer the power generation from the car to the power plant. With hybrid cars - it uses gas - but it automatically regenerates the battery that is the main power source of power - especially within city driving.

I do disagree that finding altrenative fuels is less important than the space race. if the US does not fund the research in space or cancer - we will be losing out on the future. Also many great discoveries come about through the financing of the space and many other projects. But just down the road from me in Plainsboro (not Princeton the way they indicate) - they are doing major reasearch on Fusion Power at The Princeton Plasma Phusics Laboratory.

[Cirdan]

Actually the most current numbers I found were 12.6% in 1999 for the Persian Gulf alone. The amount for all imports is 52%. Further, while consumption has increased only 10% overall, imports have increased 40% over the same period. The percent of imported oil of persian gulf origin has grow 250% over the same period.
oil stats

While new technologies have allowed the US to recover more oil from existing fields. the amoult of oil in the ground in US territory is a very small share of the world's dwindling supply. The amount of oil imported grows every year. The only large untapped domestic supplies are in environmentally sensitive areas (the gulf of mexico fisheries, the evergaldes wildlife areas, etc). Most of these places are critical food or water sources where a spill would be a major problem for humans.

The world oil market does have some growth left in it. Many new oil-bearing regions have been discovered recently, although none rival the middle east to date. Additionally though, many nations are just entering their industrial age, meaining that the number of oil consumers will rise faster than the rate of population growth.

The pollution aspect is amother reason that I think more research is necessary. Coal and oil make up the lion's share of electrical production in the US. Nuclear has been flat due to the great public opposition to the building of any new plants. Hydroelectric is fairly maxed out. Wind, solar, and biomass have made contributions but are not keeping up with the growth in demand.

The Hybrid cars will definitely help to extend the petroleum supply and alternative fuels even longer. Those damn SUVs! I don't know about where you live but they are ubiquitous here in DC. I see people going to the grocery store in Suburbans. This administration, as well as the last, have been to varying but consistently irresolute on the mileage standards proposed to limit the use of inefficient vehicles. You'd think the right to owm a giant gas hog without paying extra was covered under the first ammendment.

Fusion would be a great alturnative. The Department of energy has been on the chopping block several times, so I have my doubts as to the level of commitment by the government. I think the research budget is somewhere around $250 million. Not an overwhelming commitment considering the size of the project requirements.

I think that the space program is important. The spacestation has been described asa welfare program for NASA by some. Many discoveries have come from the space program, yet that was not the original design. It was really a propaganda to during the cold war. That it produced so many gret achievements is evidence that large scale, far sighted research and development projects that are well funded provide many ancillary benefits beyond the primary goal. While the space program has contributed a great deal to science, the more practical innovations have been made. I think that a quantum leap in the level of energy research on a similar scale as the effort of the space program would reap a great havest of benefits as well.

Cancer research is important as well. It has less need of federal funding becuase private sector demand drives the biomedial research industry. Public utilities have no such incentives. A cleaner environment would go a long way to reducing cancer rates. I am a cancer survivor, so I do have a vested interest in that area.

We've accomplished much in energy saving technologies that have allowed us too continue to progress and overcome the shortages of the 70's. but there is still a great deal more to do.

[Faramir]

I only read the top of the first page, and I must say, I AM AMAZED! That was the only time I'd ever seen CBG actually participating in a conversation instead of closing it or threatening to.

[Spock]

Good on you, A.E.

When anyone has a chance, read "Death Of The West". It is chilling.