Uh, China has already stated that Taiwan is part of China. Probably the only reason they haven't invaded is because of the US. I think what the Pax Americana people are stating that there is a new reality in the world- America is the only superpower. That isn't a policy shift, that's the truth. And America should pursue it's interests (which include democratizing places like the Middle East) without being held down by non-powers like France and Germany. I'm not sure if the second part is something I agree with. But why should the US listen to France, which doesn't have the interests of our citizens at heart, and which is just as self- interested as the US is (if not more).
The world's policeman is now the world's playground bully. I guess the point I was making about PRC invading Taiwan was too subtle for you. If America can do whatever it wants, why can't the PRC? What were those crazy world alliances good for anyway?
The PRC, India, Pakistan and Morocco/Spain can't fight because there are American carriers in the ocean and trade sanction bills in congress. That's the whole point of hegemony. The US is so big in the world no one would dare to move without its permission. Learn what an empire is first.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ll5apr05,1,41722.story?coll=la-home-headlines (Polls are useless except for starting a good argument. ) Hey, Americans are buying into this. Wonder how many of them have their children in the armed services.
The one thing I think we taught tyrants and evildoers around the world with the war on Iraq is this: if you don't have nuclear weapons now, get them as soon as possible, because then the US won't mess with you ala North Korea.
It is funny how a country that is so hated, despised, spit upon, etc is also the same country that sees so many foreigners dying to get into. Hmmmmmmmmmm....not necessarily Pax Americana, but obviously, there are a LOT of people on this planet that like something about America. It is too bad that we don't have the same attitude in letting immigrants come into this country that these other countries have against the US.
Manny...for many, this comes down to an economic issue; there are those in the wroldwho feel that is the most important issue in their lives, or at least the most important one which will be affected one way or the other by being in nation A or B. For many of those people, the US is clearly the place they would like to be...but that is not to say that that priority is universal, and in fact other priorities will be more strongly reflected in those who don't come to the US. Without getting into the agruments against US priorities, it is important to recognize that being a popular immigration destination and being right are hardly synonomius...For example, at the height ofBritish exploitation of India, when the attitude of the British towards others could best be illustrated by the kind of sign which still hangs in northern India " No Dogs or Indians Allowed Beyond This Point."...during this very period the by far number one destination of those emmigrating from India was Britain, 2nd being other British controlled colonies...Should this be construed as Indian approval of British foreign policy?
JAG, I understand where you are coming from, but I construed the thread starter's opinion of the US as one of hate. I admit that this country is not perfect and has done things that were self-serving, but you won't find any country that has not done self-serving things (well except maybe Switzerland, but who knows). I just wanted to point out that it should not be forgotten that during this time of dislike towards the US, that the US will still accept with open arms individuals who have had or still have disdain for this country.
Ironically, if we do try and continue with this Pax Americana thing, we will be confirming the predictions of many of our greatest critics in history, the Soviets.....Lenin said that imperialism is the natural progression from unchecked capitalism....Stalin said that without the USSR, the USA would become the tyrant of the world behind the guise of peace and freedom...Kruschev said that the US used the UN as a tool for it's own power, and would discard it when either it no longer needed it, or the UN grew up and thought for itself...etc...
And I guess my point to you was too sutble as well. The PRC WILL do whatever it wants anyways. Do you think that the a United Nations resolution will make China think "Hmm, perhaps we should be nice and leave Taiwan alone"? I don't think so. And it looks to me that countries like North Korea and Iraq HAVE been doing whatever they want as well. The United Nations and various agreements did not stop them from being belligerent did it? If the US didn't use force, Kuwait would be considered part of Iraq, whether the UN existed or not.
While people who come to the United States are not necessarily approving of foreign policy, they certainly don't disapprove of it enough to stay where they are. And it's not only a matter of economics, people who come to America know that they will have certain rights and freedoms that they may not have in other countries. Further, they want to give opportunites to their children, which include cultural and educational, which is why you see many foreign students come to the United States to study. I am sure you have many foreign students on your campus. Your British example showed how good things were in Britain compared to India. Even though they were discriminated in Britain they could still lead better lives. And in the US, that type of discrimination does not exist anymore anyways. In any case, it shows that the fear of Pax Americana is rather overblown. On one hand people say they are afraid of American policy, yet on the other they don't mind sending their children over to live their lives? Sounds like a deep contradiction that the people against Pax America need to resolve.
Obviously I wasn't clear...the point I was trying to make is that the two groups, those who come/want to come here represent two often vastly different perspectives, reflecting different values...As in British Empire times, there are those who will prioritize economic opportunity above all else, even in the face of such extreme racism ( Not saying that is the case in US, we have other issues which other nations have real problems with, like crime, materialism, educational problems etc.). On the other hand there are those who place other things as being more important..and those are the ones who don't try to come here, hence the ones whose opinion we don't hear, and the ones who are most affected when we deal with their nation externally. You are correct in suggesting that the US does, for some nations, represent an opportunity for certain rights and freedoms, but there are other nations which offer at least equal opportunities on that level, especially given the recent wave of restricitons on civil liberties...The freedoms which the US enjoys in comparison with some nations will be definite benefits, but it's the economic factors that are the main attraction. And this helps make our national priorities of economic opportunity as the prime motivating factor at least self-perpetuating, if not more extreme.
There is no contradiction whatsoever. Consider for example the many Palestinians who work in Israel, suffering lots of humiliation to do so, even though many probably hate and resent the Israeli occupation. The fact that a group of people will do things for economic necessarily doesn't imply anything about their hatred (or lack or) for who they work for or where they live. And remember that for many with regards to the US, it isn't a hatred of the US itself or of US life within the US but of US foreign policy. So one could strive for and want to live a good life in the US while still hating the US for its foreign policy. Of course, this is true even of many native-born Americans. Again I don't see the contradiction that you speak of.
I guess I don't understand how someone can hate a country because of its foreign policy. I hate the US's foreign policy but I don't hate the US...big difference there. To me, it is a double-edged sword. We, Americans, pride ourselves on the right to have freedom of speech and other freedoms. People who come to this country, a lot of times do not have those freedoms. That is a big reason why they come to the US. Yet, they "hate" America because of something that very few Americans can control...the government's foreign policy (don't tell me that we can control it by who we elect as President because whether it is a Democrat or Republican, there will still be people unhappy with the foreign policy). How ironic is it that one of the biggest things that people don't have in other countries and come to this country for also allows them to "hate" the very country they came to....unf*ckingbelieveable.
r35352: Where are you from? If you’re speaking from a non-American context I think you should identify the context.
In an earlier post in this thread, you contrued me as "hating" the US based on my opening post. Yet if you read my post, you will see it is a hatred of US policy, in particular, opposition of US hegemony and attempts to impose Pax Americana on the world. Unless you can point out in my post where it can be clearly contrued that I hate the US itself (rather than just hating US foreign policy) I believe you have miscontrued my viewpoints. Similarly you seem to project hatred of US foreign policy as hatred of the US itself in others. Again I feel that you are miscontruing people viewpoints. Just because they vehemently oppose US policy doesn't imply they hate the country.
Okay, I guess I am getting a little too technical here, but the part I italicized is what I was talking about. The way it read to me was that you hate the US because of its foreign policy instead of hating the US' foreign policy. See the difference? I hate the foreign policy of the US, like you, but I would never make the statement: "hating the US for its foreign policy" because to me that implies a hatred of the US which I do not have. I just have a hatred for a policy which I have no control over and not a hatred for the country itself.
Manny... I'm actually glad to have an opportunity to talk to you about this. I know we disagree on the war,etc. but I also know you are a straighforward, genuine guy who disagrees with me based on honest conviction...and I wanted to see if you remember something. Do you recall when you and I ( as JAG) had our serious 9-11 debates, and I said that I feared that the anger would be used to justify wars against nations we didn't like/had soemthing we wanted? And i was generally laughed at, and told that America would never tolerate a war against anyone who wasn't proven to be connected with 9-11? I'm not asking you to agree with me on any of my positions, but can you confirm that I did say that at the time, and that my fears were pretty much dismissed as ridiculous? The reason I ask is that I have told some people this recently, and they have doubted that I said this as early as then...
JAG, I remember very vividly those times. I was very emotional, as your remember, and wanted retribution right away. I was annoyed with what I thought was a condescending attitude, but you impressed me with your thoroughness and your deep convictions. Yes, it is true that I did not agree with you and I don't agree much with you now, but you have always been someone that has made me think about things. If only you would be more concise with your posts and not have them so long... But yes you did say that and you were ridiculed a lot like you are now. I think the reason why you are ridiculed so much, JAG, is that many people don't fully read your posts because they are so long. It is a lot easier to them to pick out the first thing that they disagree with on you and then go crazy on you, i.e. have knee-jerk reactions. It is funny because back then I did not feel very strongly about the US having an isolationist foreign policy; however, it is the one thing that I feel the strongest about now. It is too bad that will never happen.
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We're on top, we make the rules now, so f* em... (am I joking? or am I really this insensitive? you decide...)
