Tsunami Relief: America Takes The Blame

[rmnunez]

Fair enough, but isn't China and India still considered "developing" Nations? If they are, I'm pretty sure the U.N. treats the country in a different way and they are not expected to pay for the UN.

Yes, these are developing nations and they are handled differently. But labels are of subjective application. The "3rd world" are the "underdeveloped" and "developing" nations. Before the demise of the Soviets the 3rd world could be the "non-aligned". Now that there is no coherent alternative to neoliberalism espoused by any superpower, alignment is just either pro or anti US policy. China and India do get treated differently because they are developing, they have lower hurdles under Kyoto, entitlement to special credits under WTO, are allowed to engage in greater trade protectionism than fully developed countries.

IF you take out China and India, than the US could very easily still have 20 -25% of the world GDP.

I don't think the scheme is unfair, its inaccurate because it hasn't been updated and half a century has resulted in significant changes in the global economic pie.

The US share of the budget helps emphasize the importance of accomodating them, so making it more accurate might also diminish their influence, enhance that of others assuming the obligation.

[Comrade]

Quote by: G. Adams What do we former imperialist bigots think about ourselves? That we have grown to a point where our pride isn't based on childish "my empires bigger than yours" name calling, and have instead based our pride in the knowledge that each and every person in our states can depend upon his fellow countrymen to look after them when times demand it. We take pride in knowing we have created civilised nations out of our barborous selves. Long may we continue to do so, rather than descend into rampant abuse of power we once epitomised, and the US does today.

This is sort of what I was talking about, Nunez, the patting oneself on the back for being more "moral" and "civilized" than the barbaric American cowboy as recourse from not being able to really affect anything other than themselves and, in France's case, its former colonies in north Africa.

America's "rampant abuse of power" has done more for the world in the last fifty years than all of Europe's "civilized" efforts put together.

[rmnunez]

The EUers can be rather arrogant with all that civilizing they've done, but think of the heavy burden all that history entails, good gringoes will make an accomodation for this handicap. The EU is a bit player in the international scheme of things, they don't have much of a military and their trade is insignificant by comparison.

I think the EUers simply favour the only tool they've got; diplomacy. If the EU had navies in seven seas, could deploy over 100 thousand men within 3 or 4 months, had hundreds of sophisticated aircraft, spy satellites, long range bombers and missiles poised across the globe -they'd choose military force more often too.

Had they the specific weight in terms of trade, the variety and pecuniary power of the numerous US MNCs, if they could provide as substantial a market, the EUers might have a different option, but given that this is only the case in rare, but insiginificant and remote colonial enclaves, the opportunity is rare.

The EU is terribly upset about the rambunctious cowboy because its all they can be. Its a pity they don't realize their only tool is all the US really wants. The US turned to the EU for diplomatic support at the outset, not for military help.

[Comrade]

Hey, the French have their tiny aircraft carrier. No matter that, when it returned from its maiden voyage one of its propellors was at the bottom of the ocean and its engine room was thoroughly irradiated....

The EU has a bigger economy and bigger population than the US. They could field a military on par with ours, if they wanted. But for that to happen, the entire mindset of the European elite (and probably citizenry, and a quick question, I heard that the proper term for a Brit was a "subject" ?? You'd think political correctness would've changed this?) would have to change.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Comrade This is sort of what I was talking about, Nunez, the patting oneself on the back for being more "moral" and "civilized" than the barbaric American cowboy as recourse from not being able to really affect anything other than themselves and, in France's case, its former colonies in north Africa. America's "rampant abuse of power" has done more for the world in the last fifty years than all of Europe's "civilized" efforts put together.

Oh I see, commending European values is patting yourself on the back, but supporting outdated ones is patriotic.

Oh, we havn't affected anyone. Do you mean we have cut ourselves off from the world, or simply that we respect sovereignty still? As you later state, we have the means to field vast armies and the technologies to compare with your military, but we don't. We would rather spend our money on our populations welfare. Big shame there.

Has done more for the world in the last 50 years? Well lets think about that...

You failed to lead to a victory in Korea.

You failed to maintain a right-wing dictator in Vietnam, killing between 2-4million people in the process.

In the above process you bombed Cambodia, driving it's people into a nationalistic fervour, capitalised upon by the Kmer Rouge.

You almost caused the end of the world in the missile crisis because you couldn't have missiles near the US whilst you could have them yourself in Turkey and West Germany.

You had Patrice Lamumba of the Congo assassinated for being a democratically elected left winger in 54', I believe it was. They have been in civil war since.

You had the democratically elected leader of Guatemala, Jacabo Arbenz, assasinated for nationalising the fruit industry, and sponsered the ensuing right-wing dictatorships that lasted until '85, although it hasn't democratised yet.

Helped install the Somoza dictatorship after also helping to kill Sandino in Nicaragua. Continued to support right-wing terrorists, the Contras, against Daniel Ortegas government even though he wins a free election in '84, the first ever in Nicaraguan history.

Supported a coup in El Salvador in '61 against a liberalising reformist government because it had shown sympathies to Cuba. Supported a coup again in El Salvador in '77.

In Chile, 1973, you supported the overthrow of the much loved, democratically elected Salvador Allende. Your man General Augusto Pinochet installs himself as "President". Between 1973 and 1990 the dictatorship executes 3000 civilians and has, officially, 27 000 people arrested or tortured on the basis of the political beliefs. Some human rights groups claim it is up to 200 000, not 27k.

You continue to support right wing groups in Venezuala against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

You supported the Shah's unpopular dictatorship in Iran so that the oil and gas was still provided cheaply.

I helped turn Saddam's tinpot regime into the dominant Arab power so he could fight Iran. Similtaneously, you sold weapons to Iran. No profiteering going on there, eh? You also sold WMD's to this maniac, and he surprisingly uses them. If you give someone you know to be a psycopath an axe and he murders someone, you take a share of the blame.

You continue to support the bloody regime of Saudi Arabia which has an appalling human rights record.

You have begun to support (although I will add the UK has been doing so too) the dictatorship of Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, despite the fact the he boils people alive and sends the bones to the families as warnings not to oppose him.

Oh, your also one of the worlds largest suppliers of landmines.

Well that was an incomplete list to the veritable boons you've given the rest of the world. Personally, I think I'll stick with the European way.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: rmnunez The EU is terribly upset about the rambunctious cowboy because its all they can be. Its a pity they don't realize their only tool is all the US really wants. The US turned to the EU for diplomatic support at the outset, not for military help.

No, you turned to us for rubber stamping the war and funding it. And after you'd ran in there for a short war and some false glory you would have expected the Europeans to do the peacekeeping.

You want us for our diplomacy skills? Then back us in our talks with Iran and Israel. We might start respecting you again if you did.

[Comrade]

Yes, I've heard the litany of all the mistakes America has made over and over. And yet, my statement still stands that we've done more for the world than Europe has in the past 50 years.

Do you think you would need American backing with Israel or Iran if any European country had the ability to do anything but pass impotent resolutions?

Fight for what you believe in, and we might start respecting YOU again.

[rmnunez]

The British and Spain also have aircraft carriers, but they don't venture far. The EU could field a comparable force, but they've atrophied their MIC through Cold War reliance on US military force and equipment. Building up such a force would take at least a decade and cost a fortune the EU doesn't have and would rather spend on other things. The size of the EU economy as a whole is important, but remember its a bunch of separate countries cutting their own deals in competition with each other too. Pacifism has worked for the Europeans because all along they had the US military to back them up.

[Comrade]

Quote by: rmnunez The British and Spain also have aircraft carriers, but they don't venture far. The EU could field a comparable force, but they've atrophied their MIC through Cold War reliance on US military force and equipment. Building up such a force would take at least a decade and cost a fortune the EU doesn't have and would rather spend on other things. The size of the EU economy as a whole is important, but remember its a bunch of separate countries cutting their own deals in competition with each other too. Pacifism has worked for the Europeans because all along they had the US military to back them up.

Britain and Spain do not have full-deck aircraft carriers, just by the way. They have small carriers for VSTOL fighters with limited aircraft compliments. Mini carriers, you might call them. Full blown carriers are expensive. That's why the Charles de Gaulle (why do the French name everything after him? Is he their only popular figure, besides the mass murderer Napoleon?) is a lot smaller than the American counterparts.

By the way, have any of you seen the designs for the next generation of American carriers? Holy crap. They're gonna start building them right after whichever carrier thats in production now is done. (if I remember correctly)

Europe probably won't need a military, though it would be nice. If anyone (can't think of who, really) attacked Europe, America would be there, because that's what we do. I wonder if they'd be complaining about American hegemony then?

[Comrade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...llustrious.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleet_5_nations.jpg

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Comrade By the way, have any of you seen the designs for the next generation of American carriers? Holy crap. They're gonna start building them right after whichever carrier thats in production now is done. (if I remember correctly)

You mean a bigger carrier than a Nimitz class?? How much do they NEED? I've seen the story of the latest one (USS Ronald Reagan) and I can't be more impressed, but I don't see the need for anything bigger (almost as long as the Empire State Building is tall and costs 1/4 million per day just to be parked at the dock).

[rmnunez]

The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is presently active in the Tsunami relief effort. The keel for the latest US aircraft carrier (named after Bush Sr.) and slightly larger, was laid in 2003. Both are Nimitz Class, huge, fast, nuclear, about 80 combat aircraft, dozens of helicopters, thousands of sailors. I'd have thought the fate of the Belgrano in the Falklands war would have favored the European model of smaller but more agile carriers, but the US keeps making them bigger and more powerful.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is presently active in the Tsunami relief effort. The keel for the latest US aircraft carrier (named after Bush Sr.) and slightly larger, was laid in 2003. Both are Nimitz Class, huge, fast, nuclear, about 80 combat aircraft, dozens of helicopters, thousands of sailors. I'd have thought the fate of the Belgrano in the Falklands war would have favored the European model of smaller but more agile carriers, but the US keeps making them bigger and more powerful.

That's us all right. "Too much is never enough" is our slogan sometimes. :)
I would love to take a tour of that ship. I've been fascinated by naval vessels since I was a child and have toured a few old ships, but nothing like that baby.

[Suburbanite]

On the other hand, where are all the Hollywood liberals? Activist actors such as Ben Affleck, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, and Barbra Streisand have not been heard from.

This is really pathetic. I just saw Ben Affleck and all these bitches on TV like 4 days ago raising money with Red Cross. This guy is just pulling shit out of his ass. He might have had a valid point, but I cant trust his research and I am unwilling to do my own.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Comrade Yes, I've heard the litany of all the mistakes America has made over and over.

they weren't mistakes, they were and are corrupt acts of imperialism.

europe can be just as bad. france, germany and russia's role in iraq was as profit-driven as was the US's.

what makes me sick is dubya's inauguration speech in which he talks about backing democracy and freedom in the world. his aides had to later clarify this didn't mean support for allies such as saudi arabia would cease :rolleyes:

pathetic.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Comrade Europe probably won't need a military, though it would be nice. If anyone (can't think of who, really) attacked Europe, America would be there, because that's what we do. I wonder if they'd be complaining about American hegemony then?

Europe probably won't have a military because Europe isn't a state. As far as I know, all EU states have a military capability at hand. I won't lie and suggest that they, combined, would compare to the US (although I would argue UK training is better, but when you have fewer troops as active as the UK they have to be). They wouldn't. But the real point is, why should they? When oh when is someone going to attack us that requires such a vast capability as the US? We have enough capability to deal with any threat to us. The only states that can consider attacking us would be Russia, China and the USA. Firstly, these states will not do so. Additionally, the UK and France maintain a nuclear stock capable of dealing with these states.

Also, the UK alone is capable of dealing with any mid-range state alone IF it withdraws itself from all current demands upon it. We are however committed to problems in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan.

The US maintains a military to fight spectres of evil empires, we don't.

[rmnunez]

The EU signed trade deals with some countries in the region and in North Africa. The "Barcelona Process", launched in 1995, is supposed to culminate by 2010 in a free trade zone incorporating the EU, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Turkey. Libya has an observer status and Cyprus and Malta have joined the EU in the meantime. According to the International Trade Monitor, published by the Theodore Goddard law firm, the “Agadir Agreement”, the first intra-Mediterranean free trade compact, was concluded between Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia with the EU. The EU signed a Cooperation Agreement with Yemen and, in 1989, with the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman. A more comprehensive free trade agreement covering goods, services, government procurement and intellectual property rights is in the works. The GCC has recently established a customs union as well. A similar set of treaties may soon be inked with Iran with which the EU has a balanced trade position at $7 billion worth of imports versus a little less in exports.

EU's annual imports from Iraq (at about $4 billion in 2001) doubled after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Prior to the latest intervention, the EU purchased over 25% of Iraq's exports and exported almost $2 billion worth of goods to Iraq, far less than it did in the 80s, but still a considerable value at 20% of Saddam’s imports. EU aid to Iraq since 1991 exceded $300 million. But Europe's emphasis on trade and regional integration as foreign policy instruments in the Mediterranean is largely impracticable. America's cash is far more effective. Charlene Barshefsky, the former US trade representative from 1997 to 2001, explained why in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

"The Middle East ... has more trade barriers than any other part of the world. Muslim countries in the region trade less with one another than do African countries, and much less than do Asian, Latin American or European countries. This reflects both high trade barriers ... and the deep isolation Iran, Iraq and Libya have brought on themselves through violence and support for terrorist groups ... 8 of (the region's) 11 largest economies remain outside the WTO."

So the economic 'tool' is poorly suited to guide conduct in the region, Middle Eastern economies are relatively insignificant, focused on a single primary sector export with little other than extractive industries, insignificant commerce, negligible markets, no innovation, low technology, generalized poverty and a very inequitable domestic distribution of income. In an environment like this, the oil exporters (like Iraq) are fairly immune, and we saw the palace construction continue throughout the embargo. In the rest of the countries governments are responsive only to the degree they perceive of a need to improve the situation for their subjects (not something autocratic regimes are particularly sensitive about).

[Comrade]

Quote by: G. Adams Also, the UK alone is capable of dealing with any mid-range state alone IF it withdraws itself from all current demands upon it. We are however committed to problems in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Well, if your idea of the purpose of a military is to sit behind the Maginot Line.

[Evil Baby]

Quote by: Comrade I don't really care much what they think about their countries, it didn't have anything to do with my post anyways. Just to clarify, I was saying that Canada and most of the old Allied powers are pretty impotent compared to America. I was just thinking what I would feel like if I lived in a country (and shared that nationality and the pride that goes with it, of course) that used to be one of the great Western powers, and was now completely dwarfed by a bunch of cowboy colonials with a (Christian!! :o) chimpanzee for a President. No need to be snotty, my "higher" judgement is my own opinion. Its been a while since I've been here, are those still banned, or do I need sources?

In case you were not awear, your little post about other countries feeling impotent towards the U.S. is much more snotty than anything I said.

So if you don't like being challanged on it, don't make such wild accusations with no proof other than how you would feel if you lived in another country, presuming of course you still equate the same ideals of power and compotence as you do being a U.S. citizen.

[Comrade]

Thanks for your skills in reading and comprehension. I even clarified it for you, but all for naught, I guess.

My assertion is that Europe is impotent compared to America.
Whether that's snotty or not has little or nothing to do with anything.