POLL: Should the US rule the world?

Remove all ads!

You've got to admit tho, theres a certain element of truth behind it all. Im kina shamed to say I only roughly knew of where Afganistan was before all this kicked off. Im sure many americans had no idea where it was.
Not all of them mind, im sure some of you guys study geography over there.

 

No way, not only would the world be controlled by one of the earth's most mind numbingly stupid person, but it will also violate a country's soverignty.

 

I did not realize that this post could be interpereted in manners that were beyond my intent. After this was pointed out to me and I realized that there was no way that I could make my point without being off topic, I am deleting it.

Thank you Tal.

(if you or BTA would be so kind as to completely delete it I would be appreciative)

[ March 25, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

My opinion - No. It would just be a wee too much like a Nazi world dominating regieme ... though i think Hitler just wanted Europe ... mostly Apart from that, USA wouldn't be as extreme as that i don't think. Anyway, to mangae the entire world would be something ... or would be a tad bit difficult.

 

Apeman ... yes, David Hasselhoff did make music.

For everyone else ... lets rememeber that the US does NOT want to rule the world.

We gave Kuwait BACK!
We could have taken Iraq back then too, but decided to give Saddam time to disarm himself.

So, while this could be a fun thread for "what if's" please remember that world domination is not on our national "To Do" list (unlike Hitler, colonial UK, ect)

 

You don't necessarily need to conquer a country to dominate it. One example is finland in the cold war. Neutral, yet in the shadow of it's big, bad neighbour USSR it's foreign policy was notoriously careful and aimed on pleasing the russians. That phenomenon was called "Finlandisation".

(For all fins: Yes, your country has a history of bravery and glorious winter wars but anyway .... )

 

The U.S. is not, however, interested in political domination. Economic, sure, but not political -- if they wanted that, they could cut a pretty wide swath, militarily. And EVERY country wants some form of economic control as much of the world as they can.

 

Look at the international trading treaties, like GATT. Economical domination quickly can become political. So, don't you think that saudi-arabia, japan and south-korea have paid an economical price for the US protection? The US, with their export gap to japan in mind, forced japan to stop developing a totally indigenous fighter and to modify the US F-16 instead - and to offer the US full access to the production techniques involved. For sure the japanese didn't ask to build it because they liked the late 1970s aerodynamics so much ...

The borders between political and economical domination are fluent. Will a country that is economically dominated disagree politically? Won't there be a significant pressure on the gvt? When there is a lot of money involved the companies start lobbying and that induces a political reaction - in the economical interest of the dominating country.

What do you think might happen in a country with stark social shisms that elects a left gvt that decides to give back money to the people and decides to confiscate property of companies from the dominating country?
In the past the reactions have usually been military or paramilitary; this has been conducted by the US and france repeatedly.

[ March 26, 2003, 05:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

"They" is usually referring to the US "administration".

Depaara. The US is not interested in political domination?

When were there free elections held in Afghanistan? or was it that most people voted for Karazai? Why is there the assumption that US style "democracy" is better than the traditional way that peoples' use. Traditionally Afghans used a system of consultation amongst tribal elders. (I am not referring to Taliban) Is that inherently worse than US methods?

Then why do they make such a hard time for nations that don't want a form of government called "democracy"? If nations want to do it other than that then why interfere? Democracy does not always mean "freedom", it doesn't in the US, nor here. It's a gimmick that the US banties around all over the place (not that it doesn't happen here...usual meanings of "free" in the US means "us" and "non-free" means "them".)

The Australian "Prime Minister" John Coward, that's what he is, succumbed to Bush's single phone call saying "Jump John", and Coward said, "How high?"

We have been bombarded with praise from US citizens and thanks for "joining the party" but still well over half the population is opposed to the war and very suspicious of US intentions. After all the Bali bombing is a result of US foreign policy world wide. (Of course you disagree, sue me...)

Immediately after this US promises of trade benefits etc. flowed in. These "promises" will be broken like every other time, and the US will say to Mr Coward, "well you can face the rap when Indonesia invades...alone", if he refuses to join the gang of bullies, aka "coallition of the willing". This is what scares Mr Coward.

The New Zealanders, good on them, told the US to go jump years ago and dumped the totally one sided "Anzus" treaty. And they told the US to go jump again in this war.

As a result of the collapse of the Anzus treaty, the NZ economy became very backward and many migrated to Australia and elsewhere.

If this is how the US treats "friends" then how can we expect them to treat enemies?

Yes the US does have bases all over the world. So is that "ruling" the world or what? Is it not the case that the US wants to "liberate" all other nations by making them accept the "American Way"? Don't they interfere in other nations and their political systems at any cost? Perhaps they should stop to think that most people don't want the "American Way".

Every country wants to have as much control of the world as possible? Huh? I guess that the G8 is separate from the rest of the world? I don't think that Nauru is trying to dominate the world economically.

I have found it "quaint" to see posts on the forums stating that the US is strong and economically powerful so that it can do what it wants. "Might is Right" as they say.

When the US learns real respect for human life, foreign cultures and ideologies then I will respect her. And if she did a good job of truly implementing the values that she claims to be based upon, then I would be more than happy to have the US rule the world.

I just don't believe that that will ever be achieved in my lifetime.

 

I don't believe that any nation is entitled the world leader title. But i don't believe that it would be a bad idea if there was a REAL global democracy. Right now democracy is not being practiced anywhere in this world and it's a shame .

 

There is a difference between dominance and rule. In any relationship, one party will tend to dominate the other; it is just a natural fact, but it is fluid. At the moment the US is the dominant political, economic, and military force in the world. That does not mean that the US always gets its way. This dominance will probably last for some time, but eventually the US will fall to the side and another nation will rise in its place. At this time it appears that it could be China, though that is a problematic prediction at best.

Even within sub groups there is dominance. If this dominance is in flux it can actually be detrimental. For example, in the Middle East all of the countries are competing for dominance, and there has been massive conflict (yes the US has not helped in this situation, but even before the US existed this region was like this). France and England are competing to assert their dominance over the EU and the resentment of some members and candidates is rising. Even within the US, Texas, California, Florida, and New York wield incredible power in comparison to states such as Nevada, Oklahoma, Nebraska, or North Dakota.

While I know that there are those who feel that America is an expansionist tyrant nation, I doubt that they would find it very pleasant if China, any Middle-Eastern nation, or Russia were the dominant force in the world at the moment. I am also sure that there are other nations that, if given the opportunity, would fully intend to do a better job than the US, but until they are in that position, it is impossible to say what the complexities of the situation would lead them to do.

 

I know the US is a bully, economically speaking. But if they were truly the Children of Satan they are sometimes made out to be, they would have annexed Canada for its resources a long time ago. They probably would have done the same thing to Mexico. But they haven't -- ergo, they may wish to dominate the world, but I doubt they wish to rule it.

 

Darkwolf. You are absolutely right about this point "I doubt that they would find it very pleasant if China, any Middle-Eastern nation, or Russia were the dominant force in the world at the moment". Absolutely correct.

The Japanese when wanting to "rule the world" as with the Nazis, at least bothered to call a spade a spade and told their subjects that they were less than human... The US does not use these words, but the foreign policy and attitudes to the rest of the world speak it loud and clear.

The main difference is the rhetoric and loaded language used. "We fight for the free peoples of the world". Now since the people are not "free" under Saddam, then the US is not fighting for them. (Oh duh...)

A war of liberation unasked for nor demanded is not the same as cries for help. (Why didn't the US liberate Iraq from Saddam 12 years ago?!?!)

I see it that the US has just shot itself in the foot and also endangered all other Western Nations by giving the Middle East and Muslim nations in general another reason to loathe the US. It is not seen as trustworthy nor just.

Last night on current affairs there was a discussion with one of the people labelled "neo-conservative" (I think he was called Donnoly). He stated that the US like it or not is powerful militarily and economically, "so get used to it" (not exactly these words). That is very scary. I'm stronger than you, so there!

The more powerful a nation, the more responsibly it should act. This (the war in Iraq) is not very responsible behaviour, since it amounts to the same action that Saddam initiated on Kuwait.

The Australian commentator then made an analogy wherein the latest Bush "doctrine" of pre-emption and defence seems to be like the military forces protecting the settlers in the west US during the 1800s and the rest of the world are the "Indians".

Of course Donnoly laughed it off and said that was an exaggerated analogy. He also said that Australians are not viewed as "Indians". I would venture to say that at least half of the Australian public feel that they are.

It is this "desire to rule the world" that is so frightening.

Let's make another analogy that is imaginary. If Khomeini was able to be in both the military and economic position that the US is in now, and they declared war on the US "regime" because they are not "free" under the rule of the Imam, and as a result we heard Iranian government spokesmen and advisors hymning away that the US citizens are not free and need to be liberated from the evils of "democracy" etc.... (Yes it is highly exaggerated...)

How would you react? How would you respond? Would you welcome the Iranian liberating army? Or would you fight tooth and nail to defend your world view, values, property and loved ones?

It is this attitude "Might is Right" that I am talking about. With the current administration and "values" that it claims to fight for, then, no, the US should not rule the world. Ruling the world as in "one government, one nation" is not the only option. Forcing foreign governmental change either militarily or economically for whatever reason is a desire to rule that location and therefore the world.

The British "ruled the world" at one stage and I don't think that the US are weaker now, nor less interfering than the British Empire was when "she" was in power.

Depaara. To dominate or to rule the world is basically the same thing. And I don't think that the US is the "Children of Satan". Despite such silly name calling, it does not change the fact that the current US attitude to the world is, "We do as we please since we are free".

What is that? Free from UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions despite hiding behind them and forcing others to adhere to them. Free to wage war on other nations in pre-emptive strikes.

When is my nation next? Who is to say that the US won't turn on Australia? When the older generation passes on and the next generations grow older I am fairly sure that Australia will follow the path of New Zealand, telling the US to get lost.

Now in the bad books, when are we going to be "pre-emptively" "surgically striked" to achieve "regime change" so that we again dance to Uncle Sam's tune.

We can't assume that alliances don't change. Who would have thought in 1945 that the French and Germans would stand together against the British?

These things are basically theoretical, but since the US stance is, "Might is Right" then what is to stop it from coming into fruition?

As I stated before, when the US really does stand for the slogans it claims, I will ask the US to rule the world, because they sure as hell will do a better job than the loser sitting in Parliament House, Canberra!

 

Khazraj,

I see your points and the majority of them are valid. I do have to ask one question however.

What would the world have said if the US would have attacked the Taliban and al Queada prior to 9/11?

Could we have possibly made a case that they were a threat to the US prior to the 9/11 attack. Even I would not have believed that a bunch of people in a low tech country half way around the world would be a threat to the US before 4 of our planes were hijacked and crashed. Could any evidence have been provided to prove that this threat was valid?

Are we required to wait until we are attacked before we take out a threat? I will support my gov't actions against any nation that is not taking action to prevent the spread of terrorism and is supporting it. I do not believe that the US will attack any nation that is attempting to stop the spread of this scourge.

 

I was watching an interview of a member of British Labour party (I think his name was Gallogway) last night and he was talking about an organization called "New American Century". I found their website and I believe that their statement of principles, which is signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, is very intersting and that it explains a lot of things about the current policy of U.S. administration.

 

Very remarkable. Thanks for the link.

 

Darkwolf. The US has every right to defend itself, like any other nation.

Put your question in the mirror and look at it from this imaginary "Al Qaida" perspective.

Should we sit here and wait for the United States to leave our holy lands and remove their irreligious ways from our lives? Or should we remove their threat by striking at their heartland of New York, the Pentagon and their other "Holy Site" call the World Trade Center?

My point is that if the US needs to strike at a perceived threat, then so do everyone else. Therefore, what Al Qaida did at 9/11 becomes....morally correct and justified.

I don't believe so for other reasons, but if it is ok for the US to pre-emptively stike at threats rather than waiting, then other groups and nations learn the new lesson and...

I don't want to think of the results...

What happens if North Korea pre-emptively strikes Japan or the US because of the threat of US capitalist aggression against the nation? Iran? France? Israel? Russia?

Self defence is not equal to I'll punch you out before you "might" punch me out.

What would the world have said about the disaster of attacking Afghanistan before 9/11?

I think that today's protests would sum it up.

I don't know where this pre-emptive notion comes from, but it opens a far more dangerous can of worms than the dangers it proposes to curb.

Take this single sentence and put it into the mouth of Bin Laden or any other terrorist leader.

"Are we required to wait until we are attacked before we take out a threat?"

Think about that for a second or two.

 

Khazraj,

I am afraid that the credibility and motives have to be taken into account here. And before you go off on the US and its credibility and motives in attacking Iraq, don't you think that it is a little odd that the leaders of so many countries are backing this war even though their people are against it? Why would an elected official go against the will of his people unless there was something dire that (s)he knew that could not be made public?

The Islamic terrorists stated reason for attacking the US is because we are the "GREAT SATAN", we are decadent, we are an affront to god, and we support the expansionist Zionists. The stated reason for the coalition attack is that the current Iraqi regime is threat to the stability of the region, supports terrorism, and brutally oppresses the people of Iraq. We were not a threat to the lives of the Arab Muslims; they simply felt that we threatened their religion and way of life. They are now a threat to US lives. Yes it is hypocritical that the US did nothing about terrorists when they were attacking Europe, or the IRA, but that is the past, and the past should not paralyze rightful actions currently or in the future.

Neither the US nor Israel have shown any interest in expansion. We simply will not abide someone attacking us, or supporting those who do.

The entire area is gray. Taking your argument to its completion, the UK should immediately launch its full nuclear arsenal at the US, because in the future, the US might attack her, and vice versa. There is a credibility level to the threat that must be accounted for. As I have stated before, the US has shown no indication that we are going to attack any nation that does not support terrorism, and who, even at the smallest level, tries to discourage terrorism in some manner. Terrorism is the tool of those without the power to strike in the open. Appeasement in this case will only lead to further terrorism, as will the current action, at least over the short run. No amount of military action can ever eliminate terrorism, however it can reduce terrorism to minimal levels if terrorists are denied the resources they need to complete large (in size or number) attacks.

[ March 28, 2003, 17:53: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]