American imperialism and why so many around the world hate us

[JayHawk]

absolutely. thats how all alliances work - through mutual benefit. if either party thinks its at a loss, the alliance dissolves.
china makes a lot of americans nervous, we are too in debt to them and they have too much power over us. so we feel better knowing we have places near china that would side with us if it were us-or-them.
i dont think any of our involvement (which is a bit too heavy, i would preffer the government reroute some of the financing from maintaining global presence into education) is selfless peacekeeping. we happily back dictators and war criminals, so long as they are giving us what we want.

No offense but the debt argument is based in republican ignorance and has nothing to do with reality. WE own more of our debt than the next fifty countries combined. After that our staunch allies own most of the debt. China has a extremely meager percentage.

 

[Jdaylight]

Too funny!!!!

I love cut American cock.

Plus US gay porn is superb.

 

[Tengilethos]

We (America) should leave you all alone and then watch the horrific killings and wars because we're not there to help. Then the world would be begging us good guys for help.

Which horrible killings and wars would that be? Can you give us examples? Because right now the USA is very much in the first place regarding killings of foreign nationals in their home country. The killings may be justified or not, but I am still curious what wars the US is currently preventing.

 

[Benvolio]

Which horrible killings and wars would that be? Can you give us examples? Because right now the USA is very much in the first place regarding killings of foreign nationals in their home country. The killings may be justified or not, but I am still curious what wars the US is currently preventing.

There is no question that North Korea would be invading South Korea if it were not for the US. Chine would invade Taiwan. Muslims would invade Israel. Russia is less certain, but its obsession with our defense of Eastern Europe suggests that it has not lost its hostile intent.

 

[bankside]

There are human rights groups in Israel that work for human rights of minorities in Israel and annexed territories. However, with the current conservative government they are ignored. Jews in America are apathetic and do not pay attention to political events in Israel other than major terrorist attacks and wars.

The label 'apartheid' is inappropriate because Arabs and Muslims are not segregated from public facilities in Israel.

I think you should have said "occupied" territories. And I think in Israel's democracy, the voters are responsible for the current conservative government who ignores the "minorities" you speak of. And the liberal government before that. And the conservative government before that….

 

[alonelion]

no no we love american at least american guys ,corbin fisher Sean Cody cockboys .......

 

[Tengilethos]

There is no question that North Korea would be invading South Korea if it were not for the US. Chine would invade Taiwan. Muslims would invade Israel. Russia is less certain, but its obsession with our defense of Eastern Europe suggests that it has not lost its hostile intent.

Of all these only Taiwan is true.

How many US soldiers are stationed in Israel? How many US soldiers fought in Israels wars to defend it? Answer: Basically none. Israel is dependent on US money, technology and weapons in general, but it faces no external threat that it could not beat without direct US military help.

The North could probably overwhelm South Korea if the US just left. But there is no reason a country with a bigger population, better technology and much more wealth has a weaker army than North Korea. I am not even 100% sure that the South could not already defend itself from North Korea, but if the US announced a troop withdrawal over 10 years or so, then South Korea could prepare itself to be responsible for their defense. The only reason South Korea is free-riding on your military protection is because you let them.

And I already said that in another thread in CE&P, but even if the US withdrew all their soldiers from Europe there is no external threat to Europe. The Russians have hostile intentions, but mostly against the encircling done by the US.

 

[Benvolio]

Of all these only Taiwan is true.

How many US soldiers are stationed in Israel? How many US soldiers fought in Israels wars to defend it? Answer: Basically none. Israel is dependent on US money, technology and weapons in general, but it faces no external threat that it could not beat without direct US military help.

The North could probably overwhelm South Korea if the US just left. But there is no reason a country with a bigger population, better technology and much more wealth has a weaker army than North Korea. I am not even 100% sure that the South could not already defend itself from North Korea, but if the US announced a troop withdrawal over 10 years or so, then South Korea could prepare itself to be responsible for their defense. The only reason South Korea is free-riding on your military protection is because you let them.

And I already said that in another thread in CE&P, but even if the US withdrew all their soldiers from Europe there is no external threat to Europe. The Russians have hostile intentions, but mostly against the encircling done by the US.

The question which you asked was, which wars are the US preventing? You answer now is that South Korea and Israel would win the wars which you admit the US is preventing. We just disagree about Russia. I think it Putin would like to reconstruct the Soviet empire if it we did not prevent it.

 

[Tengilethos]

The question which you asked was, which wars are the US preventing? You answer now is that South Korea and Israel would win the wars which you admit the US is preventing. We just disagree about Russia. I think it Putin would like to reconstruct the Soviet empire if it we did not prevent it.

I give you that the US is currently preventing war in Korea, but I am just not sure how much you can claim that the US itself is preventing war between Israel and the Arabs just by virtue of being their arms dealer with a dose of financial aid. I am not familiar enough with Israel to say if it could afford it's military without money from the US. The military strength of Israel and the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is keeping the other Arabs from attacking them. How much of that can then be credited as the US preventing war in Israel is debatable. But of course, US backing has allowed Israel itself to be pretty aggressive in the region, so US presence can be said to both prevent and encourage war. So perhaps you are right, perhaps not, I don't know

I still think that there is no threat of a new Soviet Union, but who knows. Did you know that the last US tanks left Germany not long ago?

 

[bankside]

You don't know what occupation means. There are no occupied territories because the annexations of Gaza, the Golan, and the West Bank are claimed as sovereign Israeli territory, and they never were sovereign Palestinian states. For example, Texas is annexed US territory, while Iraq was a US occupation in 2003. If the annexed territories in Israel go back to somebody they go back to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, but if you think Egypt and Jordan want that Palestinian mess between Hamas and the PA, think again.

You're fooling no one reading from Geography for Haredim. Israel's claims are not legitimate beyond the green line.

 

[Benvolio]

I give you that the US is currently preventing war in Korea, but I am just not sure how much you can claim that the US itself is preventing war between Israel and the Arabs just by virtue of being their arms dealer with a dose of financial aid. I am not familiar enough with Israel to say if it could afford it's military without money from the US. The military strength of Israel and the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is keeping the other Arabs from attacking them. How much of that can then be credited as the US preventing war in Israel is debatable. But of course, US backing has allowed Israel itself to be pretty aggressive in the region, so US presence can be said to both prevent and encourage war. So perhaps you are right, perhaps not, I don't know

I still think that there is no threat of a new Soviet Union, but who knows. Did you know that the last US tanks left Germany not long ago?

The US also has a defense Treaty with Israel. If it is any part of the reason it's enemies do not attack, that is a war which the US is preventing. If these countries are now able to defend themselves, it is a result of past US protection, and a justification of US policy.

 

[bankside]

The Israel fiasco could have been prevented had the movement to carve off a piece of Alaska and make that a state of Israel been successful.

Israel has a right to exist and to defend its continuing existence within the borders granted to it under international law. That Israel exists in the Middle East is no mistake: historically it makes sense that a country should be established in a place connected to ones forebears.

If historical events (persecution; holocaust; deportation) justified the establishment of a separate country for the descendants of French Acadians, it would not be up by the North Pole or on the edge of Africa, or in the centre of Australia; the UN would put it in what is now New Brunswick or Louisiana.

 

[Adrock-JD]

It's easy to hate the jock. He may be a bit arrogant and clueless at times. He may sometimes speak before he thinks. He may not always play fair with those less fortunate, but there's no denying that he's hot.

 

[Benvolio]

In any event, Israel is justified holding the disputed areas until it can be confident they will not be used as bases from which to attack Israel.

 

[bankside]

I disagree, but whether they are legitimate or not is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with the definition of "occupation."When a country incorporates territory, it is an annexation regardless of legitimacy. An occupation is not a unilateral claim of sovereignty as Israel has done in the former Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories. For example, the territory of Hawaii was acquired by the United States by questionable means, but it was an annexation not an occupation. President Clinton even signed an official apology for the American revolutionaries who overthrew the Queen of Hawaii in 1893. Still, it was not an occupation. The US formally incorporated those territories whether or not foreign countries recognized it. However, the United States has occupied territories many times in its history without annexing them, which has happened in Europe and the Middle East during the formation of provisional governments.

Okay then; Israel's claims are not recognised beyond the green line.

Bibi can "annex" the Vatican or Hokkaido or Uranus for all I care and I'm sure that would please the Israeli right and American theocons greatly, but it would be just as vacant to the rest of us.

 

[bankside]

In any event, Israel is justified holding the disputed areas until it can be confident they will not be used as bases from which to attack Israel.

I partly agree with that. It was actually point made by both jockboy and hitchens that changed my mind back when Israel was shooing away "aid ships" from gaza's shores a couple of years ago.

But I think that settlement activities (entirely inappropriate) and the pretence of "annexation" (nonsense; illegitimate; unrecognised and unrecognisable) both undermine Israel's legitimate interests and legitimate attempts to deal with security problems beyond its recognised borders.

 

[Tengilethos]

It's easy to hate the jock. He may be a bit arrogant and clueless at times. He may sometimes speak before he thinks. He may not always play fair with those less fortunate, but there's no denying that he's hot.

The people who hate the US the most are the Afghans, Pakistani, Iranians and Iraqis. Do you think they hate the US because of it's wealth, freedom or power ("hotness"), or do they have legitimate reasons for that (because the US has bullied/assaulted them, "did not play fair")?

 

[Tengilethos]

The US also has a defense Treaty with Israel. If it is any part of the reason it's enemies do not attack, that is a war which the US is preventing. If these countries are now able to defend themselves, it is a result of past US protection, and a justification of US policy.

Right, and past US protection is the reason why I am living in a free democratic state. That doesn't mean that the policies are still right for the current time, that they have not obsoleted themselves because of their success.

 

[Benvolio]

The people who hate the US the most are the Afghans, Pakistani, Iranians and Iraqis. Do you think they hate the US because of it's wealth, freedom or power ("hotness"), or do they have legitimate reasons for that (because the US has bullied/assaulted them, "did not play fair")?

There is no doubt that much of the anti-US sentiment in those four countries arises from our protection of Israel. But it is an exaggeration to say that the people of those countries hate the US. Many people in those countries recognize our attempts to help them achieve democratic self rule. Both the Taliban and Hussein were brutal tyrannies. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan our "bullying" results from their harboring of al Quaeda and the Taliban before the 9/11 attack and after.

 

[bankside]

Jordan annexed the West Bank 17 years before Israel did, but it was an annexation back in 1950 just as Israel's was in 1967, even though Jordan's annexation was only recognized by one country. If Israel's annexation is illegitimate, then so was Jordan's, but both sides of the debate don't call Jordan's annexation an "occupation." Curious...

Again, the terms "occupation" or "annexation" have nothing to do with legitimacy. You are misusing the term "occupation" as an emotional appeal, in order to unjustifiably give your opinion undue weight, by implying a that your opinion necessarily reflects a state of affairs that does not exist, with no basis in factual circumstances, i.e. an occupation is not incorporation of territory, and it is not related in any way whatsoever to legitimacy of territorial claims.

I don't understand how you can contend that recognition or legitimacy are beside the point. What's to stop the United Arab Republic from annexing Israel then based on some inane edict convincing only to itself?

And I think the term "annexation" is chosen in a bid to suggest a fait accompli when it is nothing of the sort. Kind of a "don't look at the man behind the green curtain" moment of intellectual dishonesty to bolster an untenable political claim to satisfy a theocratic minority with expansionist delusions.

And within the British Mandate, the UK could have assigned administration of the West Bank to Canada, never mind Jordan.