Some of us actually love this country and what it stands for tpark. You wouldn't know what we're talking about tho.
OK...I will bite...What about Indonesia? What about Afghanistan the first time around?
What about Cuba?
What about the Iran/Iraq war?
What about CENTRAL ING AMERICA??
I am not sure what you are talking about in Indonesia but I am certain you will explain it to me.
Afghanistan the first time around was cold war related and most of Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviets. Big deal...we supported the rebel warlords with arms and advisiors...a different place and a different time...Afghanistan was the Soviets Viet Nam...after the Soviet Union fell it reshuffled the deck...and yes...some of these warlords instantly became the bad guys...but just in case you haven't noticed we went back and fixed it and they just had their first democratic elections ever. Right thing at the right place at the right time.
cuba?...cold war again...wasn't worth committing the full might of the US to decisive action because soviet reaction was the wild card. We just kept the pressure on. History hasn't ended yet. I expect to see democratic elections in cuba in my lifetime.
Iran/Iraq?...you mean the war between them?...don't remember the Mullas and the US embassy occupation do you?...of course we supported Iraq with arms at the time...we just didn't update them as technology advanced...they were light years behind by the time we had to deal with them ourselves...
What about Central America?...did you really want a communist/marxist regime completely controlling the drug traffic revenue of South America?...again, a choice between bad and worse...you would have rather we did nothing?...as I remember it we left a few democracys there too...including the strategically important Panama canal that WE built...
I think he is referring to Islamic extremists in Indonesia.
Do you remember the US supporting the brutal Iranian dictator that led to hostages???
We had a lot of CIA involvement in coups in Indonesia. It led to a load of distrust, and one reason that country is less than US friendly now.
And you justify all of those occasions with the cold war, but what it shows is that the United States is read to meddle with other countries regardless of the consequences as long as it is there to suit it's own needs.
Can you see where people abroad would fear us because of that?
I have more info on Indonesia, I just don't have it here. When I get home I'll pull out the books.
Also, a question, how would you feel if the European Union led an effort to make South Dakota it's own country in an effort to give Native American's a valid homeland ?
On post-WWII activities...
Come on Manny, US policy was all geared at preventing the worldwide spread of communism. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you want to talk consequences, it's quite obvious by the fall of the Soviet Union and also life in Cuba that communism is a cancer on a society.
What did we do after WWII? How about rebuild Europe? We pulled their asses out of the fire and we get spit on. that.
I think we need to understand that when the US undertakes a military mission, while we often tell our people that it's to save others, it's also because it serves our own interests.
Yes, we saved the out of europe and I think there is more gra ude than most americans atribute, but by the same token it's not as though the US WANTED the Nazi's to have control of the entire continent.
damn...you HAVE been brainwashed...Again, the Shah was not perfect but he was damn sure the lesser of two evils...ask any middle aged Iranian living in the US if Iran was better or worse after the Shah was assasinated and the religious fundamentalists (which he had been oppressing poor babies) took over...Do you remember the US supporting the brutal Iranian dictator that led to hostages???
dude, the Shah was straight up brutal. We put him in power, and simply because his succesors were worse, doesn't mean . It's like saying It's ok I have BO because the next guy you're going to date is going to smell like manure, and nobody likes manure.
almost 1/4 of South Dakota IS occupied and controlled by the indians with their own governments dumbass.Also, a question, how would you feel if the European Union led an effort to make South Dakota it's own country in an effort to give Native American's a valid homeland ?
no no, i'm talking about a seperate country.
change doesn't happen overnight dumbass. He repressed the fundamentalists (who were equally brutal) because he knew what would happen if he didn't.[/SeeCurrent Iran]dude, the Shah was straight up brutal. We put him in power, and simply because his succesors were worse, doesn't mean . It's like saying It's ok I have BO because the next guy you're going to date is going to smell like manure, and nobody likes manure.
One thing I'd like to see Bush do is become the world leader on ending genocide.
We stepped up in Bosnia, after the UN and NATO asked for help.
There's several countries in Africa (most notably Rwanda), a few in the Mideast, and some in Asia that need our help.
they have their own country dumbass. They vote for their own governments and control their land. ...Standing Rock and Cheyenne River together are probably bigger than Germany.no no, i'm talking about a seperate country.
hehehe just yankin your chain...I know they are part of the US but they damn sure aren't subject to the same bull that most of us are...
Snip!
Wrong. This is the bull that is used to generate hate for America.
We didn't put the Shah in power, Great Britain did. Both the Shah and his father. Great Britain still had a heavy alliance with Iran for many years after the Shah came to power. What ever periphreal role we played in the Shah coming to pwer, at worst we were following Great Britain and Europe's lead.
Furthermore, he was one of the most pro West Despots and Iran was making progress in education and Social Reform under him...he became tyrannical towards those that were trying overthrow but he was never as brutal towards the general population as he is painted to be.
The Shah, was Europe's creation, as was Israel, as was the Palestinian Israeli conflict.
As were nazism, facism, and WWII.
This is exactly why we do not need to be listening to them on how to straighten out the middle east. The idea of common people actually electing their leader is appaling to them. They talk liberal but they are an aristocracy who believes very strongly in the concept of peasantry.
They created the lousy human rights condition in the mideast. They appointed the despots. Alll we did was become friends with them to get some oil...like every other country in the World.
Sure we had diplomatice relations with many of these guys...as an alternative to them embracing the Soviets. We also put a lot of pressure on them to Westrnize their countries.
What you just said about us putting the Shah in power is the same thing the uneducated suicide bomber says...do some research and you will see who is lying.
I thank the US for fighting and defeating communism.
I just wish the Developed World (USA and Europe) helped the Third World develop.
The same thing that a lot of people complain about happens in the US (the richer get richer, the poorer get poorer), happens, to a greater degree, in the World. Richer countries continue to get richer at the expense of the poor nations of the world.
I know that a lot of those poor nations are ruled by a gang of corrupt SOBs (I know my country is) and sometimes people living in these countries don't even want to help themselves. But, as Manny pointed out in one of his posts, the subsidies on crops applied by the US and Europe are killing the Third World.
One of the only products (crops in general) where the Third World nations have an economic advantage over the developed nations, the Third World nationas are forced to compete in an uneven playing ground flooded with subsidies.
Damn shame
Last edited by smeagol; 11-03-2004 at 03:14 PM.
actually, a lot of the subsidies have been cut in the last few years and are being phased out...some still exist obviously (sugar being one of the worst examples) but many are being eliminated...
CC, I know for a fact heavy subsidies are still in place. I have a friend that owns some land in Italy and he tells me he can't beleive the amount of money he gets from the government just for growing crops in his land.
I have another friend who owns land in upstate NY and he gets incredible tax breaks for growing hay and selling it to local farmers.
And finally, I have many friends at home who tell me how difficult is to compete against the subsidies and "barriers" developed Countries apply to products.
For example, that about "foot and mouth" desease, which hurts bigtime all the cattle producers in my country. Talk about a bull commercial barrier.
You are correct that farm subsidies hurt developing countries but as I stated, the US is not even close to being the biggest source and in fact has been cutting subsidies over recent years...one specific instance that I am personally aware of is the phasing out of "peanut allottments" over the last few years...as recently as 5 years ago the area south of San Antonio was a big peanut producing area...but the phasing out of these subsidies has virtually eliminated peanuts as a cash crop to the point that most of the peanut drying businesses have closed...
as to beef import regulations this is more of a political/health issue than a subsidy. The discovery of mad cow disease has had a chilling effect on the international movement of cattle and processed beef...and I honestly don't expect that to change...this is an untreatable and fatal disease and can only be contained by destroying all the possibly exposed animals over a huge area...the introduction of mad cow would have a devastating impact on the US beef industry and we simply can't take that chance...sorry
here is more subsidy information for you...
The Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, commonly called the Farm Bill, is fully consistent with U.S. international obligations under the World Trade Organization. Under the Uruguay Round trade agreement, the United States must spend no more than $19,100 million annually on domestic farm subsidies. The estimated cost of the new Farm Bill is between $17,000 million and $19,000 million, within the ceiling allowed the United States.
The Farm Bill has a "circuit-breaker" provision should the costs exceed the estimates. The new law mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to take actions to ensure that the ceiling is not exceeded. The Bush administration is in the process of implementing a system of early warning alerts that would allow the United States time to take appropriate action to ensure that it does not violate its international obligations.
Total Farm Bill spending is not a departure from previous U.S. support levels. In fact, spending over the 2002 to 2007 period is expected to be 20 percent below what the government has been spending for farm supports over the last three years on an annual basis.
More than 25 percent of U.S. payments to farmers are for programs considered to have, at best, only minimal impact on trade. Approximately $5,200 million in farm supports goes to programs that support conservation and rural development programs. Over the life of the Farm Bill, $39,000 million is targeted for programs that will save millions of acres from soil erosion, enhance water and air quality, and promote wetland and wildlife habitat restoration and preservation.
U.S. supports are far less trade distorting when compared to other major agricultural commodity producers.
-- The allowed ceiling for European Union agricultural subsidies is $62,000 million, more than three times that of the United States. The Japanese ceiling is $31,000 million, or 50 percent higher than the U.S. ceiling.
-- U.S. agricultural tariffs, which currently average 12 percent, will not change. In contrast, average agricultural tariffs in the European Union are over 30 percent and in Japan are over 50 percent.
-- According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), producer subsidy equivalents for all U.S. agricultural programs were measured at 21 percent compared with 35 percent in the EU and 59 percent for Japan. Producer subsidy equivalents are an internationally respected measure of the level of agricultural subsidies.
-- U.S. agricultural export credits cannot be compared with foreign agricultural export subsidies. Export subsidies have a 100 percent subsidy component. Export credits, in contrast, have only about a 3.6 percent subsidy component on average.
The United States is fully committed to further liberalization of agricultural barriers in the current Doha trade negotiations. The Bush administration has called for the total elimination, over five years, of export subsidies -- those policies that are most damaging to the economies of developing countries. The European Union spends $2,000 million annually on export subsidies, 100 times the U.S. level and 90 percent of total world agricultural export subsidies. The EU has made no specific offer in current global trade talks to reduce export subsidies. The U.S. also remains committed to obtaining substantial improvements in market access for agricultural products and substantial reductions in domestic subsidies within the Doha Development Round.
Agreed, the US is not as bad as the European Union (as the article you posted correctly states).
According to your article, The US, Japan and Europe combined apply agricultural subsidies in the tune of $110 Billion every year.
[QUOTE=CosmicCowboy] as to beef import regulations this is more of a political/health issue than a subsidy. The discovery of mad cow disease has had a chilling effect on the international movement of cattle and processed beef...and I honestly don't expect that to change...this is an untreatable and fatal disease and can only be contained by destroying all the possibly exposed animals over a huge area...the introduction of mad cow would have a devastating impact on the US beef industry and we simply can't take that chance...sorry
Hoof and Mouth desease has nothing to do with Mad Cow desease. Hoot and Mouth is a desease that most cows carry in a number of Third World countries, and nobody has prooved it has any kind of negative effect on humans. The fact is, in Argentina everybody eats Argentine beef (by the way, ask anybody who has tried Argie beef and they'll tell you its the best in the World) and here we are . . . alive and kicking!
Again, the only thing restrictions on beef from countries that have not erradicated Hoof & Mouth desease does is impose commercial barriers on poor countries.
By the way, thank God there has not been any cases of Mad Cow desease in Argentina!
I know what hoof and mouth disease is and agree that the rules might be a little strict...but the disease IS extremely contagious and debilitating to herds and the virus can survive for a month without a live host...although unlikely it is still possible for the virus to be imported in processed meat and spread to live animals...the last outbreak in the UK resulted in the destruction of almost 1/2 million animals...
Fortunately our Founding Fathers had the balls to go through with their desire to change their world rather than listen to people like TPark and their constant quips like "C'mon, this tax on tea is okay. If you don't like, why don't you just get the out."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
