Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Has the role of ....

Has the role of America being constructive or distructive?
What I feel is America has always shown double-standards.
US supported BIN LADEN to fight against Russians which have lead to the present condition of Afghanistan.

America acted like a "Mother" who handed GUN in her son's hand and said "GO AND KILL YOUR NEIGHBOUR AND ALL WHO SPEAKS AGAINST YOU"

And now ,this son is pointing Gun and treatening to kill the mother.

This day had to come sooner or latter unless or untill US learns to respect other country and there people.

It's reaping time..............

It's my view point
Thursday, June 10, 2004



Man... I thought they mostly came out on the weekends...

KC
Thursday, June 10, 2004

<quote>
Has the role of America being constructive or distructive?
</quote>

Pre-2000, Constructive for the most part.

We saved Europe's ass in World War II.

Instrumental in the role of bringing communism to its death bed.  Still a ways to go, but we're almost there.

Post-2000, What a f*cking mess.

I'm not a democrat or republican, as far as I'm concerned both parties are one in the same.

Bush's administration has tarnished the US's reputation more than ever.  Who knows if we can recover...

...
Thursday, June 10, 2004

>What I feel is America has always shown
> double-standards.

Is there a person or country that doesn't?

son of parnas
Thursday, June 10, 2004


"Bush's administration has tarnished the US's reputation more than ever.  "

I remember seeing a parade here in Germany in the 90's that had a float that had then President Bill Clinton standing behind the Statue of Liberty while groping her breasts.

I'm sure Americans must have been proud that when Europe thought of America, we thought of your president being an adulterous womanizer.

Not that we necessarily agree with (or even like) Bush, but at least he stands for something unlike Clinton who disgraced your country.

Politico
Thursday, June 10, 2004

<quote>
I'm sure Americans must have been proud that when Europe thought of America, we thought of your president being an adulterous womanizer.
</quote>

Please, only someone would be so naive to think that most political leaders don't have mistresses.  It's just that nobody makes a huge stink about it like they do here in the US.

...
Thursday, June 10, 2004


"Please, only someone would be so naive to think that most political leaders don't have mistresses.  It's just that nobody makes a huge stink about it like they do here in the US."

Regardless, it wasn't until your President Clinton came into power that the world was treated with mental images of young women being seduced in the Oval Office itself all the while inserting cigars into their vaginas while the President of the most powerful nation in the world looked on. Right there in the seat of power. At least other American presidents had the dignity to keep their sexual escapades out of the Oval Office itself.

It also wasn't until your President Clinton came into office that the world had to question what the word "is" meant.

Politico
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Yes, America has always had a foreign policy that was pulled in several directions.

One way, we wanted to have trading partners.  Other free and open democracies with capitalist systems that would buy our products.  Democracies don't tend to attack each other, so that's one way towards world peace.

The other way, we wanted to guarantee we had leaders in other countries that would oppose the Soviets.  This led us to some strange bed-fellows, as supporting an anti-Soviet dictator leader took precedence over supporting his more democratic -- but socialist -- opponent.  This is why we supported the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Sadam Hussein against the Iranians.

Yet another way, we wanted in-expensive access to the world's raw-materials, so we could build up our own free-market economy.

These several forces have pulled us.  During our more 'Cowboy' phases, we're willing to assassinate and send in the Marine's to get our way.  Between those phases, we use diplomacy and economic sanctions to get our way.

On the whole, I think our influence has been positive.  At the end of the day, we still try to hold our allies responsible for their more atrocious acts.  When our more 'Cowboy' approaches come to light, we criticize ourselves.  We still do want democratically elected governments, it's just more convenient if they support us. 

Unlike other 'empire builders', we don't invade countries to take them over.  We invade countries to put in power local leaders who agree with us -- and we do that with reluctance and lots of debate.  I think there is a lot of difference between that and what the Germans did in WW-II, or what the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia, or the British did in India.

AllanL5
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Don't forget, the U.S. arming and training of Afghanistanis to fight against the Soviet Union occurred in the eighties. So did arming Iran to fight against the Iraqis. Only now is the U.S. atoning for its sins. So saying it's the fault of the Bush administration is essentially the same thing as blaming the ER staff for your own ill health.

Derek
Thursday, June 10, 2004

What's the point of being the most powerful man in the world if you can't even get a BJ out of the deal?

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

"I'm sure Americans must have been proud that when Europe thought of America, we thought of your president being an adulterous womanizer."

Ahh no, being the world's only superpower...we don't give a shit what you Euro-weenies think.....

Yo
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Bush is an idiot. The Americans are not. Usually, such idiots appear, cause a lot of trouble, but are checked and kicked out soon. This is what happens in a democracy. He will be kicked out and the Americans will reclaim their land and their values.

Even in India, a much poorer nation but equally democratic, no leader can hope to win elections if he is seen as corrupt or fascist. At some point or the other, they will be kicked out.

Karthik
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Karthik,

The only thing the US will get out of booting Bush out is a leader who will give up the control of US Armed forces to the UN.

sKerry isn't it?

Yo
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Politics makes strange bedfellows - an accurate saying that long predated the Soviet invasion of Afganistan and the Iran-Iraq war.  So we helped out the enemy of our enemy.  From a historical context, there's nothing to see here - move along folks.

On the subject of Bush - people on this forum are going to be split by political ideologies and are extremely unlikely to sway the opinion of the other side.  Any debate will just be an exercise in futility, although some will falsely think they scored a major victory with a clever jab at the other side.

On the subject of war, lately I've been asking myself these questions: which is more moral, going to war and thus taking the lives of our soldiers, the other country's soldiers, and innocent victims, or standing by and doing nothing while a brutal dictator kills thousands of his own people every year?  Do "diplomatic solutions" really ever work?

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Karthik:
Why only blame Bush?
The U.S. arming and training of Afghanistanis and Bin Laden to fight against the Soviet Union was in the eighties.
Was that fair and just?
Just  blaming and pointing finger on Bush for the present condition would be unfair and somewhat harsh.

It's my view point
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Wow, amazing to see such a discussion on a software forum. We should be geeks, living in our own worlds ;-) Guess it's got something to do with the average intelligence level round here...
Anyway, anyone seen that documentary "Bowling for Columbine" from Michael Moore? It's about guns, fear, America, its foreign policy, and how this all links up. It should be required viewing for all Americans, and well... maybe for everyone, really.
Oh and by the way, Bush is just making one big mess right now. Not that Clinton was really better, but you know, he could sell it a lot better.
Howdy, ma'am.

I am an alien.
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Yet another anon ,
"a brutal dictator kills thousands of his own people every year?  Do "diplomatic solutions" really ever work? "

This is the point, why to help,facilitate or create these brutal dictators at first place!
Here I would call the role of U.S as Distructive.

It's my view point
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Hey "It's my point of view" what country do you live in?  Would you prefer that the US had not fought the cold war?  You do realize it was a war right?  Maybe you would prefer that the Soviet empire had gone unchecked?

This middle east mess is caused by the Israel/Arab problem, but it is also a remnant of the fighting of the cold war.  Wars are very messy and cause alot of pain for those involved.

Scot
Thursday, June 10, 2004

In the case of Saddam, he came to power before US support of him.  Remember, when we gave Iraq assistance it was at a time when Iraq was at war with Iran.  Iran, of course, had held Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, so at the time Iran was the destabilizing force in the region.

The other major reason for supporting Iraq was to prevent them from seeking aid from the USSR.  Despite the Soviets called us imperialists, the truth is that the Soviets really were the imperialists.  The US certainly didn't want Soviet control and/or influence to spread into oil-producing regions.

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

"Don't forget, the U.S. arming and training of Afghanistanis to fight against the Soviet Union occurred in the eighties. So did arming Iran to fight against the Iraqis."

We funded the Iranians even after they tool all those Americans hostage?  Missed that one.

Joe Blandy
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Lastly, before bowing out of this thread - tit for tat discussions of international relations don't lend themselves to reasonable discussions.

I long ago gave up the notion that the US never does anything wrong.  But can the US-detractors here give up the notion that the US always does everything wrong.

I'm a young man - only 40 - so I don't have a real long term perspective on things.  Buit it seems to me that people are more closed minded today then they used to be.  People identify with an ideology then give up all independent thought.

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Um, Iran was holding our hostages because we had been propping up the Shah of Iran -- remember him?  That instability was of our own making.

That was my point.  America spends a few years in 'Cowboy' adventures (Wahoo!  Ride in to town and shoot up the place!  Who's goin' to stop us?  Whut's the good o' bein the baddest in the west, if we caint throw our weight around?).  We then spend many years trying to defuse the un-intended consequences of those actions.  With mixed success, I might add.

Eventually we forget the lessons of the past, and then more 'Cowboy' actions get taken, with more un-intended consequences.  (Note I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justified, given the Taliban support of Ben Ladin, and his attack on the World Trade Center.  I think expanding that war to Iraq was a 'Cowboy' act.  Especially over the objections of France, Germany, and Russia.  Especially with the lies about mushroom clouds over America.)

AllanL5
Thursday, June 10, 2004

"At least other American presidents had the dignity to keep their sexual escapades out of the Oval Office itself."

wtf???  Go read up on JFK, one of the most beloved Presidents of US history.  The man was a total horn-dog.  Got some on the side every chance he got, and he was married, same as Clinton.

I'd choose sex over war any day, personally.

anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Frankly speaking,
Yes,Going to Afghanistan was somewhat acceptable and justified (after 9/11)
But to Iraq was absolutely not fair.

I was really hoping that U.S would/should call back the troops as soon as possible after they captured Saddam. This prolonged war will do no good to America ,loss of soldier and innocent lives is one thing but at the same time U.S would end up gaining lot more true enemies than friends.

It's my view point
Thursday, June 10, 2004

I don't think France and Russia were being ovely objective either. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19685.htm 

Scot
Thursday, June 10, 2004

My bad, try http://tinyurl.com/27dar 

Scot
Thursday, June 10, 2004

I find it sort of confusing that the word America is used as synonymous with USA. Like, are Canadians Americans in the the way you normally use the word? Mexicans?

Eric Debois
Thursday, June 10, 2004

> I find it sort of confusing that the word America is used as synonymous with USA.

It's normal usage: it means America the country, not America the continent.

> Like, are Canadians Americans in the the way you normally use the word? Mexicans?

Canadians aren't "normally American" in that way (though Canada have a similar level of, I don't know, industrialization for example): in Canada, an "American" is a USAian. And, of course, Canada plays a different role internationally than does America.

Canadians and Americans are both (if you want to group them) "North Americans". But Mexicans, I think, are normally not: in Mexico for example, they use the term "Norte Americano" to refer to people who live north of their border with America.

Christopher Wells
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Only a few (pedantic) Canadians take issue with "Americans" being the title of citizens of the US of A.

One interesting thing about the cold war, to revisit something mentioned earlier: During the entire "war", the Soviet Union believed that they were only playing keep up with the US of A (and often they were far behind. The "missile gap" claims of US generals turns out to be rather hilarious in retrospect). Even the much revisited Cuba Missile Crisis looks different when you consider that this outrage; planting nuclear missiles just off Florida's coast (on the soil of a Soviet ally); played out throughout Europe where the US had plenty of medium and short range nuclear weapons within short range of Soviet soil. Couple this with the fact that US generals openly pondered a first strike philosophy (imagine what that does for paranoid Soviet radar commanders?), as well as the legitimacy of using small nuclear weapons on a conventional battlefield. Reagan, a mythical figure of history whose mistakes and failures have been shrouded in the fog of love-ins, brought down the Soviets basically by pursuing such a massive military build-up that the USSR failed trying to keep up.

The point is that while we emerged unscathed, don't presume that the methods taken to get here were the best actions. Always remember that the guy on the other side was a person with a family, perhaps with a couple of loving children at home, a dog, who liked to visit the park and feed the chipmunks.

Dennis Forbes
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Dear Alien:

Please do not refer to Bowling for Columbine as a documentary. It's a lot of fancy editing and spin.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ should be required browsing for all American's before they go to see "Farenheit 9/11".

Michael Moore appears to be a master manipulator of public opinion, not an educator.

Mark S
Thursday, June 10, 2004

"What's the point of being the most powerful man in the world if you can't even get a BJ out of the deal? "

Word! I mean, the rest of us of the male half of the working population should be so lucky to get a blowjob while at work. If I always got a blowjob at work, hell, I'd never be absent. :-P

Wisea**
Friday, June 11, 2004

Christopher and Dennis >> Thanks. I totally see why its used that way. All the options are bloody awkard like "Citizen of the USA" I can sort of see why some might take offence with it too. Language tends to evolve towards the practical and efficient, but if you disregard that aspect it comes off as pretty arrogant.

Eric Debois
Friday, June 11, 2004

Americans (of the U.S. of A) are the new kids on the block. What is it? Something like 30 odd years of actual political, economic and military monopoly in geo-politics? Happens every century. And lasts a mximum of a century. And it is the conspiracy of Mother Earth to make that 'Chair' a round-robin.

Enjoy while you can, for its damned sure your grandchildren aint going to.

.
Friday, June 11, 2004

"Enjoy while you can, for its damned sure your grandchildren aint going to."

What are we taking for the over/under for decades left for American supremacy?

And what odds are we giving for the next potential hegemonist?  China?  India?  France?  Canada?  Iraq?

Jim Rankin
Friday, June 11, 2004

"This middle east mess is caused by the Israel/Arab problem, but it is also a remnant of the fighting of the cold war."

I think it's rich that the Islamic world tries to pin all of their problems on Israel.  There are a billion of them, and a few million Israelis.  Like Israel is stopping them from instituting democracy and offering basic freedoms to their people.

I know we have some problems here with the Patriot Act and stuff, but having anything close to the level of freedom of the average American would be a huge step up for almost all of the Islamic nations of the world.

Jim Rankin
Friday, June 11, 2004

"Bush is an idiot. The Americans are not. Usually, such idiots appear, cause a lot of trouble, but are checked and kicked out soon. "

At the moment, Kerry is up on Bush 7pts in the polls.

Jim Rankin
Friday, June 11, 2004

>> China?  India?  France?  Canada?  Iraq?

China 40%, India 25%, Iraq (~= Arab/ME) 20%, France 5%, Canada 10%

.
Saturday, June 12, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home