A very easy solution for those who don’t trust the English version of the foreign newspapers - learn to read in that foreign language!
After that, probably you will find the two different language versions are basically talking about the same thing.
Where? Looking at your site, I cannot find anywhere where IAEA states that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Just to be sure, I did a search for “6” and found that it only occured in dates or numbers of reports. A search for “six” yielded on result.
Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, stated, “There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency.”
Please point to the IAEA report that Gwozdecky is apparently unaware of.
No. The white house first claimed that Bush was referring to a 1991 IAEA report. IAEA then said that there was no such report in 1991, or ever, either. Then, instead of just admitting that Bush had lied, they referred to some, as yet to be released, intelligence source. Yeah, that’s believable. But why, then, did Bush specifically refer to an IAEA report?
If I had that kind of get-up-and-go I wouldn’t be an unemployable loser.
From the scandals of priests sexually abusing or molesting children inside churches, from the bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom, Conseco, United Airline, from the scandals of investment bankers robbed billions of dollars out of investors, from the facts more and more people became homeless, more and more companies and individuals decleared bankruptcy, more and more people be thrown in jails, more and more children gone hungry and homeless, more and more people are in favor of war outside the country because their SUVs need more gas, I conclude that yes, USA is a country of moral and economic decadence.
Was that sarcasm js_africanus? Because most persons I know or I meet do make those assumptions, to my great sorrow because I know they are always exceptions out there. I think it just says that the mob mentality does exist, and once it has started it takes a lots of political courage to make something productive out of it.
BTW, I’m really happy that I finally posted a thread that incites more than 3 posts and I find the discussion invigorating; too bad not everyone who is a citizen in the developed world will have the chance to participate in those kind of discussions.
I do notice that the discussion (here and in other threads) is deflected by people like Chumpsky. I understand his frustrations with the inevitable lies or manipulation of the US government (either that, or he is a Republican disguised as a leftist to discredit them! ;)), but it is interesting that his extremes push discussion away from constructive solutions.
For example, what steps are required for the Americans to keep their empire healthy and accepted?
First, they need to be aware that their current foreign policy will have serious long term consequences. Sept11 was perhaps the last big spasm of the Islamic extremists but by continuing to put pressure and isolating the Arabs (and other EVIL™ countries), it will inevitably feed the loop of violence.
Second, America is currently the number one economic and military powerhouse - no doubt about it. But if it is to keep its empire, it must now extend the rights of its citizens to all human beings when it consider its foreign policy. It needs to look forward to win-win situations in international politics while promoting the fundamentally good things about itself (democracy, capitalism).
Third, obviously, they need to solve their major problems at home; excessive militarism, poverty, prisons, increased trend toward theocracy.
Otherwise, it will become the shortest empire in the history of humanity while the world degenerates back to the middle ages or a new Asian or European empire takes over (with the same challenges)… As you can see, these are problems that go a bit over the democrat/republican lines :D.
Quite the contrary. My intention was to say that just because people, in this case reporters, have world views that color their statements about the world it does not follow that objectivity is lost. Concluding that since everyone speaks from her own paradigm, for lack of a better word, she’s not to be trusted to accurately report on the world doesn’t seem a far cry from concluding that caricatures of people’s motivations are their sole concerns. Admittedly, that may be a slippery-slope, but c’est la guerre.
I would say that those who act only to entrench their own power or satisfy their own self-interest at the expense of others make up a minority. Certainly it must be kept in mind when they are written that laws and rules will be pushed to the limit, but that does not imply that the majority of people are solely motivated by selfishenss and greed.
For starters you could abandon the use of the highly perjorative term “empire” when describing the U.S. on the world stage. Yes, the U.S. uses its position to influence world politics in the directions it desires, but that is not what “empire” implies. “Empire” implies a political mindset fitting to imperial Rome, the Mongols under Ghengis Khan or Tammerlane, pre-war Japan, or even the Soviet Union. From the fact that U.S. foreign policy has often been motivated by short-sightedness, economic interests, and realpolitik, it does not follow that the U.S. seeks the same sort of control over the world that pre-war Japan sought in China or the Phillipines. If it did, Saudi Arabia would not be ruled by the house of Saud, it would be a U.S. protectorate completely occupied by American soldiers and explicitly run by Americans, with any resistance met by force reminicent of the Rape of Nanking. For that matter, if the U.S. sought to be an empire it would have never negotiated peace with the Native Americans.
Americans are a conceited, self-righteous lot who tend to believe in the blasphemous notion that America defines right and wrong. From the right-wing America-first nut jobs like Pat Buchanan to the left-wing let’s-help-the-world’s-poor-even-though-we’re-too-stupid-and-arrogant-to-do-it-right nut jobs like anti-globalizers, Americans tend to treat the world as an errant child to be patronized or an inanimate resource to be exploited. The only saving graces are the overwhelming belief in freedom and democracy that goes to the bone and the hope that those people represent a small minority. Absent those, the U.S. would be an empire in the worst sense of the word.
So my response to that question would be for Americans to recognize that the other nations are made up of actual people who are not children and who need to make their own best decisions based on the actual situations they really face. We need to stop being the just about the stingiest of the industrialized nations in terms of foreign aid. We need to drop all our trade barriers (except maybe critical military technology). We need to export real American values, such as freedom, liberty, equality, and constitutionally constrained democracy. We need to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. We need to pressure despots to understand that more freedom really is in their best interests. Stopping the “drug war” would probably be a good idea as well. We need to follow international law, and to apply it universally.
I’ve no idea how to accomplish those goals.
Oh, yeah, the OP. Thanks for reminding me; I sort of got sidetracked there.
I’ll venture the opinion that the US may not be morally or economically decadent (I can think of many other countries that could plausibly earn such a label), but it certainly, through its long-time foreign policy, can be considered morally and economically hypocritical. For example, what scares me most at the moment is the apprent belief at the top of the administration is somehow behaving morally by threatening the first use of overwhelming military force.
Despite the sometimes ridiculous lengths that one of the other posters here has gone to convince us that concentrations of power, by their very existence, are evil, on one point I will agree with him: representatives of this country have on occasion abused their power by participating in some the most morally repugant behavior imaginable. Through incidents ranging from the My Lai massacre to clumsy attempts to prop up dictators in places such as Guatemala and Iran, our representatives have sometimes done things for which we, as a nation, should be ashamed.
To sound unfortunately brutal, I think the reason we as a nation tend not to care much about the dark part of our history is because we have rarely had to face the consequences of our actions outside our borders; mostly, when we have, things have worked out in our favor. This should not, however, let our luck so far fool us into thinking that we occupy some sort of moral high ground. Are we less moral than other nations? On average, of course not. Are we more moral, on average, than other nations? I’d say no.
Getting back to the original…
décadence n.f.… Commencement de la ruine, perte de prestige ; déclin politique.
(Decadence: Beginning of ruin, loss of prestige; political decline.)
-Le Petit Larousse
So, f.w.i.w., the reporter is not saying that the American empire is becoming self-indulgent, but rather that it is beginning a decline.
Just so we’re on la même page here.
I’m sorry js_africanus, but every single country on earth apart from the US (and you) has come to the conclusion that the US is an empire and determine their foreign policies relative to this.
It is not of course the same as the Roman empire (who was itself different from other empires), but it is still an empire nonetheless. Your government after all has thousands of soldiers stationed in other countries, you train foreign soldiers, you deploy nukes in foreign countries, you bomb remote countries to defend American interests (doesn’t that mean that US interest is global??) and you try to impose policies advantageous to Americans only…
Of course, it does not necessarily follow that an empire HAS to be “Evil”… After all, the Roman empire had very positive effects. And by being democratic (if citizens participate to that democracy of course), America is less susceptible to be an empire lead by crazed emperors (surprisingly, some of them were worse than your current president :)). But it is a big problem that US (and its citizens such as you) don’t take responsability for its military, economic and cultural empire…
I agree very much with the policies you suggested…! It would be good policies for an enlighted empire 
Perhaps just talking about it is a good sign… It will propagate the meme that U.S. should become a force for good and take its responsability as world leader. If enough people are convinced of this, it will change general views of the population (the leaders will follow…).
Well, there’s a start of the problem. Mischaracterizing the U.S. with an extremely perjorative and value laden term is hardly going to encourage a friendly attitude. Indeed, ever since the The Barbary Wars it should have been clear that Americans are, to a large degree, not interested in taking any shit. If Americans are guilty of failing to understand others, then it appears equally true that others are guilty of failing to understand Americans. More to the point, however, consider the words of historian Robert Conquest in his book “Reflections on a Ravaged Century,”
Ritualistic, unpersuasive, and thought-blocking seem true enough. Indeed, Great Britain and Canada are subjects of an American empire? You get Canadians to admit to that and I will contemplate my position.
Nor is the U.S. a cultural empire. I’ve never heard of Americans forcing anybody to watch American movies or television, or listen to American music. I once lived with a French fellow who loved a couple of American sit-coms; he was hardly subjegated by an imperial authority. If you feel that the U.S. has a disproportional influence on global culture, fine, say so. But don’t imply that it is the product of imperial edict.
This is not to defend America’s failings. A doctor who saves one-thousand lives is not permitted one free murder. However, I do not accept the idea that the U.S. deserves to have the baggage of “empire” thrust upon it, either.
So, if I understand correctly, you do not deny the US is an ‘empire’ but object to the negative connotations of that word to describe the situation.
Would you prefer hegomonist?
No matter what term you come up with, the act of trying to dominate the world will always have negative connotations.
I’m sorry that that makes you feel bad.
I object to the connotations becaues they tend to be a perjorative mischaracterization. I object to the word because it is, by the definitions I can find, simply not accurate (except in a strictly metaphorical sense, I suppose). The definitions I find are generally along the lines of
Which is from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.
Hegemon would be fair, first because the U.S. seeks to have a predominant influence over the world & its allies, and second because that is, to some extent, the truth. The U.S. seems to be able to throw its weight around, and not always to the world’s benefit. Whatever negative connotations come with hegemon, I guess I have to accept. Indeed, I think I’ve made it more than clear that I would assert many of those negative connotations myself. But the U.S. has earned those negative connotations by its hegemonic designs, and I have no reason to “feel bad” for them. It pisses me off that the political leadership claims that the world is “either with us or agianst us”. It pisses me off when college students assert that Africans are too stupid or childish to decide whether they wish to drink Coca-Cola. It pisses me off when protectionist economic policies make the world suffer (not to mention ourselves in the process). But those are different from conquest and domination and all that goes with them.
So please use hegemon if you wish. That seems a good and accurate term.
“Hegemon” would be fine except that it sounds like the next one after Pokémon and Digimon.
“I choose you, Condichu!”
So I guess my SDMB “location” is suitable? 
I also thought that the traditional definition of an empire was a number of kingdoms, equal in status, under an emporor… and a new emporor could come from any of the kingdoms? If this definition is true, the Fifty Statesfit the definitiuon of an empire more accurately that the British Empire. I must be missing something.