The US.. Great evil and the worst country to have ever existed, or?

The USA, like all countries, is capable of evil and good. Because it is currently the most powerful country on earth, it is capable of great evil and great good.

IMHO, thanks to the humanitarian priciples and distrust of power woven into its government structure, the USA has, so far, in spite of all the abuses commited over the past two centuries by its elite, has done more good than bad.

The power-grabbers and greed-mongers will have to do a lot of damage to make up for the US’ great good deeds. Unfortunately, it seems sometimes that they’re working overtime.

Living next to an elephant is never a comfortable position: you always have to keep one eye open in case it rolls over. But if I could pick my elephants, I couldn’t do much better than the one I’ve got.

Dudes, the site Coax linked to accuses the Israeli military of germ warfare against the Palestinians, and has the whole the Jews did 9/11 thing going!

No, this is NOT an accusation of trolling, but please consider where this guy’s coming from (and note he still doesn’t tell us what country he’s from, so we can’t judge its spotless record) and forget about it. I’m bailing on this thread now. Buh bye.

Considering how much power the US wielded, especially after WWII, it can be argued that there has never been a more benign country. Of course this doesn’t mean the US has acted in an exclusively benign maner, not even close.

In fact it could be argued that the US is the greatest country that ever existed. I am not arguing that, because I think it has no meaning

Fine. I’m from norway. Start digging.
And also, I’m not saying everything on that site is correct, or even remotely true, but I needed a cite for my allegations that the US has been involved in terrorist organizations and whatnot.
This is not exactly news and I didn’t have any other websites at hand at the time.

I can probably dig up some more sites though.

Bogus anti-Semitic propaganda is not properly regarded as a cite.

Instead you guys could, for example, take the writings of Noam Chomsky, or the like, as a basis for discussion on this subject.

Noam being many things, but certainly not anti-semite.

Nor is Africa considered to be a country. Last tiime I checked, oh about 1 second ago, it was a continent.

Norway, you say? Didn’t someone there invent dynamite?

“Always” seems a bit strong. How do you explain Somalia? There weren’t really any U.S. interests there, just starving people. While you can argue that we screwed things up horribly while we were there I don’t think we had any ulterior motives going in.

Monty:

Well actually it was one of us swedes, Alfred Nobel (of the Nobel price) that invented dynamite.

I accept no responsibility for that, though, whatsoever :slight_smile:

Coax said:

So then treat us as such and only use intelligent links…or at very least try!

Yes, “always” is a bit strong. All generalisations are false, including that one. I take it back. How about “nearly always”?

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Somalian involvement to say why the US went in. Possibly they saw it as a destabilising factor in the region, and they were afraid that instability would spread, and then affect US interests more directly. Possibly it was a “toe in the water” experiment in which the US tried to find out what it would be like if they really were to act as the world’s policeman, as they are so frequently accused of doing. Possibly their motives were purely humanitarian. Possibly.

Although it’s easy to be critical of many elements of US foreign policy, this is simply reflective of it’s importantce in the world - the only remaining superpower. Therefore its foreign policy has an amplified effect throughout the world.

If anyone wants to dicuss it, I’d be happy to slate British foreign policy, especially our arms trade. And then there’s EU destruction of West African fishing stocks. And lots of other things.

But, frankly, the USA is smiply the big cheese that really matters. Therefore everyone focusses upon what the US is doing. And the US is a mixed bag - it presents extremes - which means that for all the good it is actually doing, it is all too easy to focus on the harm.

When people like myself focus critically on the harm, it is not to say that the USA is a terrible place - simply that there are issues to be addressed. But every nation has them. It is simply the issue of scale that makes the actions of the United States of America so much more important in the world.

Saw on TV just now that the Baghdad stock market has been rising sharply since August, and that Iraqi property prices have been soaring. Could it be that they’re actually looking forward to an American invasion? Hmm.
Quote from the included cite:

Another indication that an American invasion is viewed positively by Iraqis was the massive appreciation of the Baghdad stock market when the UN Security Council passed a resolution in November warning the Iraqi regime of “serious consequences” for failing to cooperate with arms inspectors.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0301_ir1.htm

The U.S. does plenty of wrong & stupid things. But think for a moment: what other country could threaten to stage an invasion and have the people actually bid their local stock & property prices up on the news?

Sounds like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick in The Mouse That Roared, “We declare war on the United States on Monday, we surrender on Tuesday, and by Wednesday we’ll be rehabilitated beyond our wildest dreams!”

I gonna take the contrary view to everybody else in this thread and say more bad than good.

Not because I really think that but just because every debate needs two sides. So, what’s my evidence?

er…um…

I’ll get back to you on that, but just you wait, it’s gonna be really good, don’tyouworryaboutthat, nosiree, uhuh.

Obviously, the USA is a lovely place - blessed with far more innate “goodness” than “malevolence”.

Here’s the thing though, OK? Ultimately, this whole issue of “is the USA too big for it’s boots? or is the USA a loose cannon? blah blah blah blah” is really just a question of perception in reality. And here’s why…

Firstly, whether we like it or not, the English language is currently the world’s language for doing commerce. This hasn’t been the USA’s doing primarily - it has just kind of evolved that way over 200 years - and in particular, since the dawn of the industrial age.

Next, because English is the world’s lingua franca for doing the commerce, you then have a situation where the world’s largest economy, which also happens to speak English as it’s primary language, is then perceived as having undue influence.

But there’s more to it than that. It also involves the perceptions of undue influence via communications.

For example, how many of us watch a Chinese version of CNN? Or a Russian version of CNN? They might possibly exist, but if they do, you or I certainly aren’t regular viewers. Accordingly, stuff which happens within China, or Russia, or central Asia, or South East Asia, or Africa tends to be VERY important to the locals in those regions - but we here in the West tend not to notice too much.

However, within those local regions, stuff often happens which is just as tumultuous, if not more so, than stuff which happens in the Western World - but it’s importance invariably remains inherently localised if those regions are not members of the “English speaking business club”.

Take this scenario for instance - perhaps, and we might never know, but perhaps already a Chinese equivalent of the Oklahoma tragedy has already happened within mainland China. If so, would we have heard about it? Consider also, China’s population is simply gargantuan - and yet, human rights violations aside - exported terrorism on a scale of al-Quaida is never seen or mentioned.

Ponder on something else for a moment… Consider also those nasty al-Quaida folks - ponder on their mindsets, and the need that they have for the USA to exist for their own self-definitions of self worth to also exist. Have we ever once heard a pronouncement by bin Laden regarding the heathen Godless hordes which exist in China, or Africa? Have we ever heard al-Quaida go on the war path against Australian aborigines for example? Or Tibet’s monks?

Nope… of course not… and the reason is self-definition. All things being equal, the sentiments of militant Islam are as much defined by “jealousy of the West” as they are by anything else. Militant Islam needs the West to exist, and moreover, to be thoroughly successful, for it to prosper on the seeds of emnity and feeling exploited.

Another example - Shell Petroleum is a huge company and a huge player in Arabian oil - and yet I rarely hear al-Quaida or militant Islamists haranguing the Dutch. The reason primarily is this - to define themselves, those who criticise the West invariably have to target the brightest, most visible exponent of the West - and that country is the USA.

And now, to the crux of my point - the USA is in an unenviable position it seems to me - and as a loyal Australian ally and friend of my lovely American cousins - I offer you my sincerest empathy. Unlike sport, the innate problem attached to world affairs is this - when you reach Number One, the jealous types out there don’t just want to improve themselves and beat you fairly and squarely - rather, they prefer to bring you down and degrade you down to THEIR level - via horrible cowardly means.

Trust me when I say this - if the worlds language for doing business was German (just as a random example) and if CNN was aired in German as well - I bet you London to a brick that September 11 would have targeted Berlin and not New York and Washington.

Indeed, Germany is one of the luckiest countries in the world nowadays - it was amazingly rebuilt and reinvented after WW2 - and it has few, if any Colonial interests - and yet it has prospered and prospered and prospered - with hardly any jealousy and mean spiritedness from places outside of the Western World. I honestly believe there’s a insightful message to be learnt there.

“Perception is not Reality.”

This is written by a guy called joseph pakovits in the politics forum of the “bigsoccer” site. I’m always amazed at how well he knows about the history: (hopefully this is not copy-righted)

=======================================

Yeah, the USA is the only country to nuke another… twice. Yeah the USA has done nasty things to it’s own people (chemical and medical and biological). Sure the USA has helped some bad people get into power.

Changing Presidents lets new Presidents point blame elsewhere and no one person is accountable over time. I think if the USA had ONE or TWO leaders for the past 80 years it would be looked at differently then it is now.

I would guess the USA would be hated more then it is now if ONE leader had been in charge from 1940 on.

“Hopefully the Moderator won’t just delete…oops! Darn!”

Please review our FAQ on copyright issues. “Hopefully this is not copyrighted” doesn’t cut it.