by tintin on Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:27 pm
[s]Ewan MacDonald wrote on 12:29, 16th Mar 2004:
1.) Their imperialist message, no. What america does is encourage free trade, freedom of Speech, and Human rights. That isn't imperialism, that is a moral perspective that should be encouraged, unless you believe those attributes to be a bad thing.
Encouragement of free trade: Our objective with the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is to guarantee our North American companies control of the entire territory from the North Pole to Antarctica - free access with no obstacles or difficulties for our products, services, technology and capital...Colin Powell, US Secretary of State. Hardly letting others get a share of the market, are they? Hardly bringing the free-market and liberal values of America to all, are they?
Human rights: I refer you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it applies (or doesn’t, in America’s case) to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I also refer you to experiments conducted on American Citizens during the MK Ultra project.
I also encourage you to look again at the proliferation of such charming organisations as the KKK; the fact that racial segregation was in place until very recently in a SUPPOSEDLY CIVILISED COUNTRY, and their inherent denial of opportunity to racial minorities until VERY recently.
2.)They destroyed the British Empire. Even of the British Emprie was a completely good thing, and it wasn't, surely the financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. Apologies if my heart does not bleed that London can't oppress a large proportion of the globe.
Financial and military obligations of two world wars had more to do with the colpse of the British Empire. I think it was more to do with an increased desire for national self-determination on the part of the colonised, than to do with military obligations, but we’ll let that pass. I also note the sorry state of many, if not all (with the exception of Malaysia) colonised nations. But we’ll let that pass, as well.
3.) Russia. Bearing in mind that America has left Putin alone and not condemned him for his outrageous anti-democratic policies I think that that point falls. Secondly the idea that their idology was superior to America, so now you believe that communism is uperior to free-market democracy and capitalism.
Would the desire for hefty oil contracts have anything to do with this?
4.) America tells everyone what to do. Well they don't, what America does is actually do things, as opposed to the french who as well as being garlic chewing surrender monkeys, would rather talk, discuss, and just like me, procrastinate. Also since I presume this is a reference to Iraq, Frane did not want to be involved because of the large weapons deals they had with Saddam. I'm glad America ignored them.
So America has never had weapons deals with ANY dodgy regime? Gosh, I MUST be misguided.
And it’s OK for America to have weapons. They tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons. But not anyone else? Why are places like China not allowed to have WMD, but America is? Are they in some way superior? Oh, according to your arguments, they are.
France values discussion and talk as a means of resolving issues peacefully. America just dives right in; makes Britain and the others follow (if Britain hadn't, it might have found itself rather isolated).
5.)I will concede that in WWII America did not save Britain, the RAF did. However, it is accurate to state that neither conflict could have been won without American intervention. In WWI the Allies moved less distance than an ashmatic ant with heavy shopping until America intervened. If they hadn't then the large number of German soldiers moving from the Eastern frnt might well have ben decisive. In WWII how exactly was Britain going to conques Europe?
Rather an odd statement. How can you compare the RAF to an entire country? Did the Royal Navy and Army play no role in winning the war, then? Were they so weak that they just had to call out the RAF, who had, according to my interpretation of your statement, been doing nothing the whole time?
I rather think that Britain’s mission in WW2 was not to conquer Europe but to defend herself from enemy invasion. The Germans wanted to conquer Europe.
misguided opinion and bias
I would urge you to read John Pilger’s “The New Rulers of the World” before you tell me I am misguided and prone to bias. You as a historian ought to know the value of reading around an issue. It might open your eyes to a different and perhaps even more valid viewpoint than a simple "hang ‘em and flog ‘em" mentality.