"most are motivated by very simple means like money"
Are you serious? Well, let us suspend reality just a moment and suppose this were true and an acceptable foreign policy ethic. Why doesn't Bush simply announce that the US wants to protect/enhance it's economic situation and that is why it is going to invade Iraq? This announcement would certainly be more believable than the rhetoric that's flowing presently.
Are you serious? Well, let us suspend reality just a moment and suppose this were true and an acceptable foreign policy ethic. Why doesn't Bush simply announce that the US wants to protect/enhance it's economic situation and that is why it is going to invade Iraq? This announcement would certainly be more believable than the rhetoric that's flowing presently.
Originally posted by traderbam
Why doesn't Bush simply announce that the US wants to protect/enhance it's economic situation and that is why it is going to invade Iraq?
It’s called politics;
Everybody knows that money is at the top of the list, but nobody out-right talks about it, it’s political death to say the simple truth and admit a monetary position. That’s why they have to put a human right spin on it, not that it’s not true that people are starving or being treated poorly but I don’t think that’s the main reason, that’s happening all over the world. It simply cost too much to keep a watch on a rogue country, and WE the USA and our close allies have to foot the bill, and it will bankrupt any country that has to be the worlds police, and if we choose to ignore then we have instability in a already troublesome region that will grow like a fire out of control, and soon or a later WE and the rest of the world will have to do something that will cost a lot more lives and money.
Again this is only my opinion.
Thanke for the link Rob, good reading, so far ( only read 3 pages)I agree with every word in this document.
Why doesn't Bush simply announce that the US wants to protect/enhance it's economic situation and that is why it is going to invade Iraq?
It’s called politics;
Everybody knows that money is at the top of the list, but nobody out-right talks about it, it’s political death to say the simple truth and admit a monetary position. That’s why they have to put a human right spin on it, not that it’s not true that people are starving or being treated poorly but I don’t think that’s the main reason, that’s happening all over the world. It simply cost too much to keep a watch on a rogue country, and WE the USA and our close allies have to foot the bill, and it will bankrupt any country that has to be the worlds police, and if we choose to ignore then we have instability in a already troublesome region that will grow like a fire out of control, and soon or a later WE and the rest of the world will have to do something that will cost a lot more lives and money.
Again this is only my opinion.
Thanke for the link Rob, good reading, so far ( only read 3 pages)I agree with every word in this document.
Homogenizing the World
Thanks for the tomb, Rob. Interesting. I'm not sure I have time to get through all 35 pages.
Of course we can all agree that tyranny is not a good thing. The problem is whether a single nation has the remit to deal with it in isolation. I think not. So the US must act more like a team player in order to get support from other nations.
The first two paragraphs of the document ring alarm bells for me. It is as if the US believes it has the ultimate, sustainable political/social system and feels that everyone else in the world should have the same system and that it is the right of the US to encourage that to happen and the desire of all other peoples to have it thrust upon them.
Strangely not a very diverse approach in these "pro-diversity" times.
Seems familiar too.
It isn't helped by the fact that the US model is not working all that well within the US: I can tell you for a start that many of the worlds people really dislike the US attitudes towards individuals and the planet and feel threatened by the spreading of these attitudes. For example, while people like the positive aspects of "freedom" many do not like the idea of "every man for himself" and find it somewhat inhumane. They don't like the erosion of human values in favour of business profiteering. Also, the way news channels are overtly controlled by sponsors instead of reflecting the facts in as unbiased a way as possible is not considered a healthy sign. The US HDI is much lower than it ought to be for such a "successful" nation.
There are many good things about the US for those who have skill and initiative: it is relatively easy to accumulate money if you can exploit the system. With money you can live opulently. Tax is low, especially tax on natural resources like oil. And your personal wealth is not wasted on others who are less fortunate than yourself (health provision for the poor?). There is no need to trust anyone, individuals don't need to have their own sense of right and wrong nor the responsibility to resolve arguments and achieve compromise (an army of lawyers deals with this). National security, aside from the rare terrorist attack, is relatively high because the nation is armed to the hilt and will blow anyones head clean off if they step on our property (does this sound familiar?). And the geography is great.
I'm not sure the rest of the world is quite ready for this, but thanks for the thought. 😎
Thanks for the tomb, Rob. Interesting. I'm not sure I have time to get through all 35 pages.
Of course we can all agree that tyranny is not a good thing. The problem is whether a single nation has the remit to deal with it in isolation. I think not. So the US must act more like a team player in order to get support from other nations.
The first two paragraphs of the document ring alarm bells for me. It is as if the US believes it has the ultimate, sustainable political/social system and feels that everyone else in the world should have the same system and that it is the right of the US to encourage that to happen and the desire of all other peoples to have it thrust upon them.
Strangely not a very diverse approach in these "pro-diversity" times.
Seems familiar too.
It isn't helped by the fact that the US model is not working all that well within the US: I can tell you for a start that many of the worlds people really dislike the US attitudes towards individuals and the planet and feel threatened by the spreading of these attitudes. For example, while people like the positive aspects of "freedom" many do not like the idea of "every man for himself" and find it somewhat inhumane. They don't like the erosion of human values in favour of business profiteering. Also, the way news channels are overtly controlled by sponsors instead of reflecting the facts in as unbiased a way as possible is not considered a healthy sign. The US HDI is much lower than it ought to be for such a "successful" nation.
There are many good things about the US for those who have skill and initiative: it is relatively easy to accumulate money if you can exploit the system. With money you can live opulently. Tax is low, especially tax on natural resources like oil. And your personal wealth is not wasted on others who are less fortunate than yourself (health provision for the poor?). There is no need to trust anyone, individuals don't need to have their own sense of right and wrong nor the responsibility to resolve arguments and achieve compromise (an army of lawyers deals with this). National security, aside from the rare terrorist attack, is relatively high because the nation is armed to the hilt and will blow anyones head clean off if they step on our property (does this sound familiar?). And the geography is great.
I'm not sure the rest of the world is quite ready for this, but thanks for the thought. 😎
Re: Homogenizing the World
Oh, please.
You people over there read of a handful of major lawsuits and you think that every time someone brushes against somone else on the street in the USA, a lawsuit follows.
I am a middle aged man, and the only lawsuits I have been involved in occurred from two traffic accidents where the other car hit me in the back of my car. I received $5,000 each time, which was distributed equally to the medical people, the lawyer, and myself. In pocket, I received about $1,300 for each accident. That is for my entire lifetime.
I believe you will find a similar case for most Americans. Most of us are not presently involved in a lawsuit, and might only be involved in one or two, or maybe none, in their life.
I do not know what your economic status is. You might deal with wealthy businessmen who do use the threat of lawsuits as leverage in their multimillion dollar dealings with other wealthy businessmen, but that is a very tiny slice of life in the USA.
Besides, I have seen courts have a very positive effect on relations in the USA. Decades ago, there were certain "in" groups and certain "out" groups. Nobody had to worry about repercussions if they turned down someone for a job or a promotion because they were part of an "out" group. Doesn't fit the "profile", etc. It was accepted. Everyone went along.
Court decisions challenged this, and there has been progress and awareness since then. This is bad?
An over-reliance on Tradition and Good Manners has it's drawbacks. The feeling that you can sue when your rights have been violated can lead, and has led, to good changes.
traderbam said:
Oh, please.
You people over there read of a handful of major lawsuits and you think that every time someone brushes against somone else on the street in the USA, a lawsuit follows.
I am a middle aged man, and the only lawsuits I have been involved in occurred from two traffic accidents where the other car hit me in the back of my car. I received $5,000 each time, which was distributed equally to the medical people, the lawyer, and myself. In pocket, I received about $1,300 for each accident. That is for my entire lifetime.
I believe you will find a similar case for most Americans. Most of us are not presently involved in a lawsuit, and might only be involved in one or two, or maybe none, in their life.
I do not know what your economic status is. You might deal with wealthy businessmen who do use the threat of lawsuits as leverage in their multimillion dollar dealings with other wealthy businessmen, but that is a very tiny slice of life in the USA.
Besides, I have seen courts have a very positive effect on relations in the USA. Decades ago, there were certain "in" groups and certain "out" groups. Nobody had to worry about repercussions if they turned down someone for a job or a promotion because they were part of an "out" group. Doesn't fit the "profile", etc. It was accepted. Everyone went along.
Court decisions challenged this, and there has been progress and awareness since then. This is bad?
An over-reliance on Tradition and Good Manners has it's drawbacks. The feeling that you can sue when your rights have been violated can lead, and has led, to good changes.
Re: Homogenizing the World
Yes, like we don't require women to wear veils in public.
Do you have any examples? I hope we don't fall into the trap of the mere anecdotal here.
traderbam said:
Yes, like we don't require women to wear veils in public.
Do you have any examples? I hope we don't fall into the trap of the mere anecdotal here.
Re: Re: Homogenizing the World
Sorry, that's a cultural thing. You're offended by women using veils in public, some people would be offended if they saw you eating meat in a fastfood restaurant, or not praying to your God four times a day.
kelticwizard said:
Sorry, that's a cultural thing. You're offended by women using veils in public, some people would be offended if they saw you eating meat in a fastfood restaurant, or not praying to your God four times a day.
Traderbam,
"The US HDI is much lower than it ought to be for such a "successful" nation"
What is this HDI of which you speak?
Kelticwizard,
examples of American-inspired behaviour that are resented in Europe generally come under the umbrella of conspicuous consumption:
Disposable items and excessive packaging at point of sale.
Junk food. (McDonalds etc).
"Recreational" off-road vehicles covered in chrome that consume vast amounts of fuel for no good reason. (We don't have problems with a farmer's Land Rover).
The computer/software con that tries to make anything older than 3 years obsolete.
And, finally, TV news presenters selected for their hair.
There are probably others, but the insidious growth of the above makes a society poorer, not richer.
"The US HDI is much lower than it ought to be for such a "successful" nation"
What is this HDI of which you speak?
Kelticwizard,
examples of American-inspired behaviour that are resented in Europe generally come under the umbrella of conspicuous consumption:
Disposable items and excessive packaging at point of sale.
Junk food. (McDonalds etc).
"Recreational" off-road vehicles covered in chrome that consume vast amounts of fuel for no good reason. (We don't have problems with a farmer's Land Rover).
The computer/software con that tries to make anything older than 3 years obsolete.
And, finally, TV news presenters selected for their hair.
There are probably others, but the insidious growth of the above makes a society poorer, not richer.
Re: Homogenizing the World
Just to make sure my meaning was clear... I didn't post the link to convince anyone that US society should be the model for the world. I think it's mandatory reading because it's the closest the administration has come to actually explaining what they're up to. Sorry if it seemed otherwise!
Well, now, things in the US are actually working just fine. Of course there are problems, like anywhere else, but it's not nearly as bad as you might think -- if it was we'd all be trying to sneak into Canada!
The image of American society (and I mean everyday life, not just foreign policy stuff) that you see in European media is horribly distorted. From what you see on TV, you probably get the idea that Americans are all either white humvee-driving fast-food-eating millionaire gun-collector corporate raiders living in gated communities planning their next lawsuits, or they're black and on death row. Even if intellectually you know this isn't true, the constant emphasis on What's Wrong WIth America is bound to create an overall negative impression that isn't matched by the reality.
Remember who's telling you all this: the European media for the most part is controlled either directly by the government or by political elites who have a lot invested in the status quo. And it's to their great advantange if lunchroom conversation across Europe is about the latest American lardass suing McDonalds instead of, say, the unaccountability of the European Commission or the pressure immigration is putting on the social contract.
The European model has a lot going for it -- it's hard to argue with six weeks of vacation! -- but it's got some serious problems too. And really, in the great scheme of things, the differences between American and European societies are largely cosmestic. Someone from Iraq or North Korea could probably make do with either one.
On another topic -- I'm curious what kind of play the recent Franco-German plan and the NATO wrangling is getting in the German press. From what we're hearing over here, it sounds like it's backfiring, but it's hard to know who to believe.
traderbam said:
Just to make sure my meaning was clear... I didn't post the link to convince anyone that US society should be the model for the world. I think it's mandatory reading because it's the closest the administration has come to actually explaining what they're up to. Sorry if it seemed otherwise!
Well, now, things in the US are actually working just fine. Of course there are problems, like anywhere else, but it's not nearly as bad as you might think -- if it was we'd all be trying to sneak into Canada!
The image of American society (and I mean everyday life, not just foreign policy stuff) that you see in European media is horribly distorted. From what you see on TV, you probably get the idea that Americans are all either white humvee-driving fast-food-eating millionaire gun-collector corporate raiders living in gated communities planning their next lawsuits, or they're black and on death row. Even if intellectually you know this isn't true, the constant emphasis on What's Wrong WIth America is bound to create an overall negative impression that isn't matched by the reality.
Remember who's telling you all this: the European media for the most part is controlled either directly by the government or by political elites who have a lot invested in the status quo. And it's to their great advantange if lunchroom conversation across Europe is about the latest American lardass suing McDonalds instead of, say, the unaccountability of the European Commission or the pressure immigration is putting on the social contract.
The European model has a lot going for it -- it's hard to argue with six weeks of vacation! -- but it's got some serious problems too. And really, in the great scheme of things, the differences between American and European societies are largely cosmestic. Someone from Iraq or North Korea could probably make do with either one.
On another topic -- I'm curious what kind of play the recent Franco-German plan and the NATO wrangling is getting in the German press. From what we're hearing over here, it sounds like it's backfiring, but it's hard to know who to believe.
American bashing...
That is how they are portrayed on much of the film and TV they sell to the rest of us😉
Of course there are cultural differences, but the US is surely the most Xenophobic of all the "free" countries?
With the great diversity within their own country, it seems they consider that to be the word gammut, which it certainly is not.
I won't even go into the world geography issue😱
That is how they are portrayed on much of the film and TV they sell to the rest of us😉 Of course there are cultural differences, but the US is surely the most Xenophobic of all the "free" countries?
With the great diversity within their own country, it seems they consider that to be the word gammut, which it certainly is not.
I won't even go into the world geography issue😱
Re: Re: Homogenizing the World
how did the rest of the world get this impression?
how did we forget that your president is the illegimate son of an illiterate migrant fruit picker and an unwed black teenager?
unfortunately the real leaders of your country are the people you are so desperately trying to distance yourself from with this statement.
hmm. probably banned with my first post. well it was fun.
Rob M said:
how did the rest of the world get this impression?
how did we forget that your president is the illegimate son of an illiterate migrant fruit picker and an unwed black teenager?
unfortunately the real leaders of your country are the people you are so desperately trying to distance yourself from with this statement.
hmm. probably banned with my first post. well it was fun.
EC, your conclusion is contradicted by facts. The US is a relatively wealthy country.
BTW, when I'm in Europe (6-7 times a year), I always hear complaints about McDonalds, usually coupled with brainless slogans like "cultural imperialism." As I point out to my French friends, the way to stop the spread of Les Arches d'Or is simple: STOP EATING THERE.
The real cultural imperialism is Italian. I'll wager there are more pizzarias in Prague and Paris alone than there are McDos in all of Europe. But the Italians always get a free pass- when was the last time you heard them accused of killing Jesus?
BTW, when I'm in Europe (6-7 times a year), I always hear complaints about McDonalds, usually coupled with brainless slogans like "cultural imperialism." As I point out to my French friends, the way to stop the spread of Les Arches d'Or is simple: STOP EATING THERE.
The real cultural imperialism is Italian. I'll wager there are more pizzarias in Prague and Paris alone than there are McDos in all of Europe. But the Italians always get a free pass- when was the last time you heard them accused of killing Jesus?
LES MCDOS.
Hi,
The French always complain anyway...and as you point out correctly,instead of blaming the multinational (and that is what disturbs them most IMO) they can just as well not visit the junkfood temples.
The Italian are *family* people and that is much more acceptable to most Europeans, add to that the fact they're *cuisine* is European too and you get the idea.
One can easily accuse the Chinese of doing the same thing as the Italian but since they serve good food for the buck everyone is happy with them.
People are strange kettle.😱
Bon appetit,😉
Hi,
The French always complain anyway...and as you point out correctly,instead of blaming the multinational (and that is what disturbs them most IMO) they can just as well not visit the junkfood temples.
The Italian are *family* people and that is much more acceptable to most Europeans, add to that the fact they're *cuisine* is European too and you get the idea.
One can easily accuse the Chinese of doing the same thing as the Italian but since they serve good food for the buck everyone is happy with them.
People are strange kettle.😱
Bon appetit,😉
One of the diffences is that MacDonalds is a brand, serving identical food all over the world, and each outlet is constantly checked to ensure it conforms to that regime. A Quarter pounder in China is exactly the same as in Kansas.
Other styles of food have adapted to local tastes and ingredients, and benefitted from it, most western chinese food bears no relation to that served in China, and curries are different all over the world!
Other styles of food have adapted to local tastes and ingredients, and benefitted from it, most western chinese food bears no relation to that served in China, and curries are different all over the world!
And the corollary is that the pizza one gets in Prague or Frankfort (and presumably Brussels!) bear very little resemblance to anything you'd find in Italy.
SY said:
Very true, a pizza in Germany with toppings biased toward the German market is very strange indeed! Not bad...Just different..🙂
But then again on reflection, Irish pubs ARE the same all over the world😉
pinkmouse said:
Actually McDonald's food varies quite a bit world over. In India there is no beef on the menu no Big Mac, no Quarter Pounder. You can order a Chicken Maharaja Mac or a McAloo Tikki Burger. In Japan try a Teriyaki McBurger. In Packistan a Chatpata Chicken Roll or Chicken Chutni Burger with Aaloo fingers on the side and don't forget your KöfteBurger in Turkey or Curry Potato Pie in Hong Kong.
Even travelling between Canada and the US there is sometimes quite a difference. (I can't stand the BBQ sauce they use in the US).
You know, in France, they don't call it a Quarter Pounder, they call it a Royale with cheese.
Sorry, just having a Tarantino moment.
Sorry, just having a Tarantino moment.
SY said:
I was not referring to fiscal wealth, but cultural wealth.
Agreed. If nobody ate at McDonalds, they would disappear. But McDonalds, along with other junk food chains, employs powerful marketing targeted at children and teenagers (who are not able to discriminate between advertising and facts). Thus, we now have a group of 20 - 30 year old adults who have been indoctrinated with the junk food philosophy.
A few years ago, some of my students were shortlisted for the Royal Television Society's annual awards, and they invited me to the presentation. A very agreeable lunch was provided, with the dessert prepared by the Roux brothers. Superb. Yet the students were unappreciative, and wanted to stop for a burger on the way back. That was their cultural poverty - they were unable to appreciate a good meal.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.