Well, I'd prefer US politics dealt with America only, and stay away from my country.
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
WhiteFlower, our government seems to forget the difference between humanitarianism and foreign aid when becoming involved with other countries. Unfortunately, human rights is a key principle of our democracy. I can assure you that the majority of our citizens have no desire to meddle in another country's business. Most meddling is for personal/corporate gain, not the rights & concerns of the country's citizens.
It's interesting, however, to see how people from other countries see the USA. Brim made a broad stroke comment that I wish he'd be a lot more specific about. Its for sure most of us, here, do not prefer the USA acting like a World Police enforcer. Mac
Thank you Brim. Your profile doesn't indicate where you're located, but could you expand your points a bit? In what ways have Democrats shown they're introspective and Republicans shown that they are more world aware? Got any examples coming to mind?
And this one baffle me a bit "when American starts caring more about people around the world and not what's in it" ... please expand that comment if you will. Thank you! Mac
Im from UK. Dont get me wrong I like America and its people. My original reply was a bit blunt as I thought it might help get the conversation going and, as a non American, couldnt go to deep in the Democrats vs Republican internal debate.
From my perspective USA under Reagan and the Bushes got involved across the world more than Pres Obama. Especially in the middle East. Presumably Reagon and Bush were Reps and Obama Dems. Our news reports that President Obama has said he wants to concentrate internally rather than the rest of the world.
When America does get involved, its chiefly when American interests are in danger (such as oil etc). Also because of the Jewish influence everything comes across as pro Israel and very anti muslim. Even on a liberal site like this, comments about muslims are met by angry comments from Americans on here.
The world has some large issues to sort out including sharing the wealth and fairness for all. America is in a great position to help sort out some of these issues which a lot of us out here thought Pres Obama might do but it just hasnt happened. A great opportunity lost.
From my perspective USA under Reagan and the Bushes got involved across the world more than Pres Obama. Especially in the middle East. Presumably Reagon and Bush were Reps and Obama Dems. Our news reports that President Obama has said he wants to concentrate internally rather than the rest of the world.
When America does get involved, its chiefly when American interests are in danger (such as oil etc). Also because of the Jewish influence everything comes across as pro Israel and very anti muslim. Even on a liberal site like this, comments about muslims are met by angry comments from Americans on here.
The world has some large issues to sort out including sharing the wealth and fairness for all. America is in a great position to help sort out some of these issues which a lot of us out here thought Pres Obama might do but it just hasnt happened. A great opportunity lost.
Reagan is credited with ending the cold war, bringing down the E-W German wall, and crashing the Soviet economy with the nuclear arms race. He chose to create a fictitious thing called "Star Wars" which our government spent billions on promoting but never really existed, physically. Reagan had a tremendous amount of charisma (remember he was an actor first). His domestic policies, however, tripled our national debt during his 2 terms with his implementation of Supply Side Economics (also called Trickle Down Eco., Voodoo Economics), encouraged vulture & crony capitalism, and drove a big wedge into the income equality of the rich vs poor. Of course Republicans will totally deny this, however, as their economic platform clearly relies on Reagan's "supply-side" theory that if you cut the taxes of the wealthy, jobs will be created for the poor ... that's been proven wrong by practically every economist, and our country's insistence to continue applying "supply-side" theory has created much of our existing national debt. Our government edges closer and closer to becoming an oligarchy than a democracy every day. Now, our Supreme Court judges have started choosing sides.
Our involvement in the Middle East accelerated with the World Trade Center attack, and Americans in general, have had a terrible attitude toward the Islamic world. It appears, to many of us, that peaceful Muslims are afraid to stand up and fight their own extremists, who cause most the havoc in the region. Here in the US many of us notice that Muslims are mostly silent as to what is going on overseas. We wonder why they don't "speak out" against the extremists, but they rarely do. Over 5,000 of our soldiers died (250,000 permanently wounded), trying to help stabilize Iraq & Afghanistan over the past 10+ years. For the most part we have seen these countries unappreciative and unwilling to fight for a stabilized government, themselves. We should have never entered the second Iraq war.
The war in Iraq was a fraudulent war; your own Tony Blair got suckered into the fray and paid heavily for it. Yes, it was over protecting the world oil supply and was caused by our VP Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld feeding intentionally, false information to our then-President Bush about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Many of us feel Chaney & Rumsfeld should have been imprisoned, but Bush made sure that didn't happen, and when our current President, Obama, took office, he elected not to pursue charging them. Rumsfeld, by the way, quietly resigned; Cheney, however, is a very powerful individual and still a pain in our current government's ass. He's trying to promote his own ******* into the political arena. She's about as informed as her *******. Cheney has never admitted making a political mistake ... never!
President Obama is focusing on domestic policies more than foreign policies because that's what he said he would do and it is what most the American people want done. The citizens of our country have had a belly full of war. If Republicans were in power, in Washington, we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably in Iran and/or Syria. The Arab world has been fighting each other for centuries ... we should never gotten involved.
Question back to you ... please explain your last underlined comments "The world has some large issues to sort out including sharing the wealth and fairness for all. America is in a great position to help sort out some of these issues."
Thanks ... Mac
Last edited:
Yea our Margaret Thatcher had the same 'drip down' theory of economics that the rich get richer and the money flows down to the poor. Hasnt quite worked out like that.
Regarding the underlined comments. I think most people are beginning to realise that there is something in common between blacks in the USA in the 60's, Catholic Irish in N Ireland in the 60's, white working class in UK now, muslims around the world now etc. That is the fact that no one is listening or listened to their concerns. So what happened? The blacks rioted, Catholics supported IRA terrorism, whites join extremist organisations and muslims support groups who stick up for them. Simply put- any group that feels no one is listening has to take action to get listened to.
Now America is still the most powerful country in the world, economically and militarily, people will listen to you. So when Obama became president- a non white guy- many of us thought he would enable people across the world to be listened to.
The 19th century was Europeans, 20th century was Americas, the 21st century will be China's? Or the developing worlds? Either way there are massive discussions to be had on peoples movement around the world, over population in some areas, financial aid to countries who spend the money on armaments and not food or medicine, investing in Africa but to the peoples benefit and not ripping them off etc.
I believe we should be reaching a point where bombing people will just make more enemies, whereas showing we are trying to help practical problems around the world will bring us all more benefits.
Regarding the underlined comments. I think most people are beginning to realise that there is something in common between blacks in the USA in the 60's, Catholic Irish in N Ireland in the 60's, white working class in UK now, muslims around the world now etc. That is the fact that no one is listening or listened to their concerns. So what happened? The blacks rioted, Catholics supported IRA terrorism, whites join extremist organisations and muslims support groups who stick up for them. Simply put- any group that feels no one is listening has to take action to get listened to.
Now America is still the most powerful country in the world, economically and militarily, people will listen to you. So when Obama became president- a non white guy- many of us thought he would enable people across the world to be listened to.
The 19th century was Europeans, 20th century was Americas, the 21st century will be China's? Or the developing worlds? Either way there are massive discussions to be had on peoples movement around the world, over population in some areas, financial aid to countries who spend the money on armaments and not food or medicine, investing in Africa but to the peoples benefit and not ripping them off etc.
I believe we should be reaching a point where bombing people will just make more enemies, whereas showing we are trying to help practical problems around the world will bring us all more benefits.
Brim, you obviously seem to have a grasp of the evolvement of things. Unfortunately, Obama took office at a very rough time in our country's history; our economy was close to collapsing when he took office ... ie: Wall Street, housing market, auto industry were all collapsing, and he was faced with 2 unfunded wars, a increasing budget deficit that still hasn't been fully rectified, and over 700,000 jobs a month were being lost. On top of that, many in the opposing party doubted his citizenship and validity as President, and the President made a lot of promises that proved unattainable due to the economy's environment.
Probably the biggest concern to me (and many others) was the passage of Citizen's United, which opened the flood gates of unlimited, political donations by corporations and our wealthy citizens. This, to me, has hurt our 2-party system's ability to reach middle ground in negotiating policy. And what has angered me, as of late, are the attempts to roll back voting rights, and rig voting results. This is all being influenced by the huge flood of money, making it almost impossible for politicians to make logical, practical legislative decisions for ALL Americans, not just the wealthiest.
Our citizens, however, are getting angrier by the day, and I believe the Nov. mid-term elections this year are going to reflect this anger ... people have had enough of the lies, obstructionism, etc all at the taxpayer's expense.
I might add that both parties see the opposite party as the guilty party. We'll see in November.
Thanks for the feedback, Brim! Mac
Probably the biggest concern to me (and many others) was the passage of Citizen's United, which opened the flood gates of unlimited, political donations by corporations and our wealthy citizens. This, to me, has hurt our 2-party system's ability to reach middle ground in negotiating policy. And what has angered me, as of late, are the attempts to roll back voting rights, and rig voting results. This is all being influenced by the huge flood of money, making it almost impossible for politicians to make logical, practical legislative decisions for ALL Americans, not just the wealthiest.
Our citizens, however, are getting angrier by the day, and I believe the Nov. mid-term elections this year are going to reflect this anger ... people have had enough of the lies, obstructionism, etc all at the taxpayer's expense.
I might add that both parties see the opposite party as the guilty party. We'll see in November.
Thanks for the feedback, Brim! Mac
Thanks for the explanation. I wish you all luck over there as the world will need a prosperous USA for a long time to come!
Glad to see you have done okay since our little fall out in the 1770s any time you want to come back under our wing you are most welcome!
Cheers (sorry no good at the little graphics!)
Glad to see you have done okay since our little fall out in the 1770s any time you want to come back under our wing you are most welcome!
Cheers (sorry no good at the little graphics!)
More world aware? Yeah the foreign policy of Bush was terrific
I think you confuse 'caring more about people around the world' with geopolitical motivations protecting the US interests. Obama is going with the European approach. His self proclaimed red lines seem to be there to be crossed. All for the sake of not being provocative. It's time Europe mans up and starts building a joint army ******* that can take over the role of the US in some parts of world.Still, I think Dirty Wars gave an insight in to the fact the war efforts have shifted to drones and special forces, avoiding 'boots on the ground'. Did anyone watch Dirty Wars?
The democrats in the US are pretty much the equivalent of conservative right wing parties in EU. I don't see how the Rep's will win elections with the demographic they are still pushing for. Personally I always read about libertarians with interest. Gotta love their dedication in such a conservative country, where moralistic and theological rhetoric goes against every grain of freedom.
Do you know why we are the world enforcers? Because nobody else will step up to do it. I dont alway agree with it but sometimes it needs to be done. Usually in the case of national security.
Your comments are depressing, and go a long way to explain why some people around the world arent keen on the attitude of some Americans.- 'world enforcers' 'nobody else will step up to it' The problem is you only enforce whats in it for you. If you genuinely did 'enforce' laws fairly and squarely there may be some respect but you pick and choose where you get involved, where were you in Rwanda to name just one?
Stop being the playground bully and be more like the team coach helping those countries trying to develop and you wont need so much need for 'national security' in the long term.
First, the united states usually goes where there is a world issue that first and foremost could effect our homefront as any country should, second we have and continue to be the biggest foreign aid supporter and supporter of human rights around the world. The world is a big place and we cannot be everywhere at once and need to pick and choose where we go. Personally i would prefer that we dont help anyone anymore as we have anough pressing economic and social issues at home but then people will bitch we are not helping enough. Pretty much a lose lose scenario for us.
To be fair, you kind of contradict yourself.
You either don't 'help anyone any more' because you were only there because of altruistic motives. Or you are there to protect your own interest.
I think every nation does this and it;s absolutely fine.
First, i only went to a state college not a University so big words like Altruistic go over my head......lol Just kidding. What i am saying is i understand for the most part why we go around the world doing what we do. I dont always agree with it as i believe we have more pressing issues at home. Now when it comes to world issues that have potential national security risks we have to act.
Oh oh, JFK been dropped. Waiting for illuminati references.
and we've had references to the jewish controlled media in post #24 from another poster.
It's too bad this site doesn't have the same convenience feature as LinkedIn. There, if someone doesn't follow the rules of the forum or thread the o-p sets up, the moderator can ban them from the thread so they can't comment further. The mod's give that individual one warning about name calling and profanity, then they're tossed out. After a few times, THEY LEARN!
bm ... possibly you could toss that suggestion out to the "powers to be" ?
Last edited:
When you say THEY are playing us for fools who is They?
