What a Letter

Whoa, I don't think I've said anything offensive to you

you mean other than continually saying how crappy the US is. sorry but as a US citizen i take offense to that.

And that's great. But having been born in the US and lived there all your life, you also don't have the perspective of someone outside the US and that's always the main criticism of the US - that in a very large sense, it policies and its people don't acknowledge or care about the rest of the world outside its own economic interests.

therby insinuating that unless you have lived in another country, your opinions on world events are inferior to people who have lived in more than one country.

I don't write any of this just to say horrible things about the US or because I think it's the worst country ever in the history of the world

however, in any politically minded post i have read of yours, you always come across as anti-american. there is this old cliche, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck , and quacks like a duck....."

now, i have wasted far too much time on this topic. no matter what i have said or read or feel, that doesnt change the fact that one day this week (if not more than one) i will see on the news images of people in another country chanting that they hate americans. it makes it really hard to feel sympathetic for anything they have to endure knowing that they hate ME.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

head of state in canada: queen elizabeth II (source: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ca.html)

list of nations currently in the commonwealth of the united kingdom......[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations_by_continent]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations_by_continent[/link]

Of course Canada is part of the Commonwealth, but it's pretty much ceremonial at this point. Either way, Canada is not a colony. I'm also not sure what this has to do with anything we've been talking about.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

Whoa, I don't think I've said anything offensive to you

you mean other than continually saying how crappy the US is. sorry but as a US citizen i take offense to that.

I am ALSO a US citizen. I became a citizen 3 years ago because I chose to and went through an incredibly long, expensive, and hard process to do so. I could talk to you for hours about all the things I love about the US and I'm sure you'd have a very different perspective of me, but these things aren't really pertinent to this thread.

I'm not talking about "how crappy the US is" for no reason, I'm talking about what I consider to be mistakes the US has made in order to shed light on current and historical conflicts. You asked why people hate the US and Xerxes and I were talking about the causes of terrorism and I was attempting to shed light on that.

therby insinuating that unless you have lived in another country, your opinions on world events are inferior to people who have lived in more than one country.

The insinuation was not that it was inferior, but that it was different and that we all have important viewpoints to discuss. It was being said again and again that because I live in Canada I can't understand. I was simply saying that my understanding is *different* and valuable, just like the viewpoint of someone who has lived in the US forever and never left is valuable to the overall understanding of what is happening and how it affects people.

As I was telling Xerxes, privately, I have a friend whose boyfriend was recently killed in Lebanon, a friend whose grandmother was sitting a bomb shelter in Israel for a month, friends who can't return to Iraq to visit their families because the US has made it such a dangerous place, friends beaten by police at anti-war protests in the US, friends who fear their husbands will be sent to Iraq, friends who were supposed to be working in the WTC on the day it was attacked and continue to breathe the remains of their families, friends, co-workers and partners, friends who have seen their countries destroyed by American bombs. When the bombs went off in London, I was in Sweden visiting relatives, scared my husband had been killed and, when I found out he wasn't, screaming at him to get off the bus he was on because I thought I might hear him killed at any moment. A week later, all the windows in our local Mosques (I lived on the East End in London) had been broken and bomb threats called in by people who wanted to kill and terrorize Muslims. I wouldn't use public transport for a month because I was so scared. The sight of a backpack on the ground gave me a panic attack and made me start crying last year. I have friends who have been detained at airports in the US just because they are Muslim. All of these stories matter and that's the point I'm trying to get across. I care deeply about America, but I also care deeply about people in other countries and don't want killings to take place, I don't want torture to take place, I don't want anyone - Americans or people in the ME - to have to live in fear or perpetuate this fear. America has great opportunities to end so much suffering and my hope is that it lives up to that. It's totally not about viewpoints being inferior, it's about viewpoints being part of a huge, ongoing narrative that desperately needs to be spoken.

I don't write any of this just to say horrible things about the US or because I think it's the worst country ever in the history of the world.

however, in any politically minded post i have read of yours, you always come across as anti-american. there is this old cliche, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck , and quacks like a duck....."

That is your own misinterpretation. Critiquing America does not make one anti-American. If this was the case, some of the greatest political, human rights, civil rights and women's rights leaders in American history would be 'anti-American.' Would you rather not talk about historical facts? Only the ones you like, that make America look great (because there are a lot of those too, of course)? Because you say you're getting your feelings hurt by people on TV chanting about hating America and that needs to be put in context. Or do you not care why they hate America? I'm not quite sure what your objective here is.

I'm also wondering how to NOT be anti-American to you? To not be anti-American, do you have to not talk about huge historical facts? Not be upset by them? Not have deeply troubling ethical and moral issues with the killing of civilians regardless of nationality? How do you critique America and express your dissent from government policy without being anti-American? And is anti-American really the worst thing to be? It seems like such a conversation-stopper. "I take issue with the US involvement in the World Bank," "You're anti-American!" and it doesn't go anywhere, it's just meant as an insult.

delete double post

I am not a hawk or a dove.  I take each situation as it arises.  But, what I do know is that man's inhumanity to man is pretty much a given, in this milennium or any other.  You will never stop religious intolerance, wars, or neighbors fighting over the back fence.  So, the best defense is, as in other ages, the best offense and the most balls, frankly, and it is increasingly apparent that while we have the best offense currently, the balls department is sadly lacking.  Since when are we responsible for bombing a military target and then rebuilding the damn thing BEFORE the war is won?  Since when do we not give a rat's butt that the first thing most of the terrorists want to do, given half a chance, is the same objective that Adolph Hitler espoused - the eradication of Jews (AND Christians, this time)?  It's nice to talk peace, but there will never be any.  Get used to it, and stockpile food and weapons, as the survivalists say.  A second "Viet Nam" response is in the making.  We may like our soldiers just fine this time, but we have still not learned how to couple our "shock and awe" with properly fought guerilla warfare, which is what is hamstringing us now.  Americans have guts, but little tolerance for extended warfare that doesn't seem to have a tangible goal.  A "War on Terror" is not a tangible goal.  Getting Osama is tangible.  Freeing the Kurds is tangible.  If you're going to BE a cop, be one.  But, if not, and if you're so freakin' humanitarian in the face of yet another holocaust, then send your charity to Appalachia, not Afghanistan or Darfur and prepare a will.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

the first thing most of the terrorists want to do, given half a chance, is the same objective that Adolph Hitler espoused - the eradication of Jews (AND Christians, this time)?

Which terrorists are you talking about? Islamic Jihad, maybe, but they are the craziest of crazies in terms of terrorists and have very little in common with most other terrorist organizations.

Hamas, which was originally strongly supported by Israel to disrupt the secular Fatah, not really. Look at policy and divisions within the party; while certain members have occasionally made statements to the effect of eradicating Jewish people, this is not really what Hamas is about at all and it's not an organizational objective. A lot of people point to the 1988 charter as evidence that Hamas wishes to kill Jews, but this charter is painfully outdated and bears little relation to the organizations as it currently exists. Also, talking about eradicating the state of Israel - which means dismantling the state politically, not eradicating it with with bombs - is completely different than eradicating the Jewish people. And if you look at Hamas's history, they have asked for a two-state solution that preserves the state of Israel many times ( this is one of several times: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm ) and this summer they were in talks to recognize Israel, which they did in a roundabout manner. They have offered and maintained many ceasefires, overwhelmingly broken by Israel, and has made many attempts at peace plans ( recently:http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1104-26.htm ) Hamas has changed drastically in the past few years, with many more moderate voices being included in the structure. Look at this comment by Mahmoud al-Zahar:

"[My] dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land". He also "didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, adding that the Palestinians never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy."

Khaled Mashal (and many others in Hamas) have repeatedly stated that Hamas will stop armed conflict with Israel provided a two-state solution that includes the 1967 borders (which most Palestinians agree to), the right of return, and withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. Such demands are certainly at odds with the wish to eradicate all Jews, right? He has also said:

"Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

Hizballah, no (Hizballah actually gained great support from the Christian community in Lebanon - an approval rate of about 87% this past summer). Hizballah takes great pains to distinguish between Zionism as an ideology and Judaism as a religion and a people and make it very clear that their issue is with Zionism and the policies and actions of the Israeli state. Again, some individual members of Hizballah have made public statements to the contrary, but this is not organizational policy and does not represent the objectives of the organization as a whole. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb has done very valuable work on this issue.

Al Qaeda, no. Iraqi resistance forces currently identified as terrorists by the US, no. The eradication of Christians is not a goal of any terrorist organizations I know; in fact, Christians are part of some of the terrorist organizations listed above, as are Jewish people (Hizballah famously includes several Jewish members). As is well-documented, terrorism is rarely about religion, including terrorism by Palestinian organizations. See the Tamil Tigers, the most prolific suicide bombers ever, for a view of terrorism that still remains relatively free from the framing of religious conflict.

It's nice to talk peace, but there will never be any.

I have no illusions that there will truly be peace because I don't really think the changes will be made that promote peace. But the changes that can be made to minimize conflict are well-known and advocated by countries and organizations all over the world and, idealistically, I hope these changes are made.

If you're going to BE a cop, be one. But, if not, and if you're so freakin' humanitarian in the face of yet another holocaust, then send your charity to Appalachia, not Afghanistan or Darfur and prepare a will.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

inne,

Apparently you missed my post regarding Gen. Sherman's quote.  Let me reiterate.  War is Hel-l. (don't know if it will get by the filters.)  What Sherman meant was tjat war is a horrible thing.  It is terrible and terrifying.  It is unfair.  People die.  People die of wounds.  Others are inconvenienced.  Children, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, uncles, aunts, cousins, boyfriends, friends-they die.  It's not pretty, It's very grisly and gruesome.  It's fact.  War IS Hel-l.

My own quote, which you also missed.  War is total.  War should involve horrible , gruesome images, disgusting behavior.  It should kill s, there should be collateral damage.  There should be carnage like you wouldn't nor couldn't imagine.  War should be so filthy and so wrong that humanity doesn't seek to wage it.  War is total.  It should inconvenience your grandmother, and inconvenience your friends visits home.  It should be total.

War is a filthy horrible despicable thing. 

Now onto a previous post that I didn't have the energy to reply to last night.

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Sure, there's always going to be a few people angry at the policies of our government and our President. But unlike Putin, Bush won't have them poisoned. Unlike Saddam, Bush won't have them beaten, humiliated and then executed. Unlike Ceaucescu or Pol Pot he won't have them buried in mass graves. He won't have them run over by tanks, or simply make them disappear. [/blockquote]

What? Bush created Guantanamo as a lawless space in which is practiced. People are held without charge. The US has admitted regular use of in detention centres in Iraq and Afghanistan, has admitted maintaining secret prisons in which to . Tanks run over children in Baghdad because they are instructed not to stop in case they are being 'trapped'. Daisy cutters and other highly imprecise weapons that maximize civilian casualties are used. There are mass graves of millions of people all over the world whose s have been the direct or indirect result of American actions. There would also be mass graves in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if anything was left to bury. The US supports, funds and arms regimes and organizations throughout the world that and their people. While there are many wonderful things about the US, many great humanitarian missions carried out, many great inventions, policies and people, the US certainly also has a history of carrying out and supporting atrocities and this is a big problem to me. Making a list of everything that's good about America doesn't make up for these things. Why say "we're not as bad as ...."? Why not live up to higher standards, more humane practices? Why not say "The US doesn't impose sanctions that create humanitarian crises," for example? Wouldn't that be great? Or "The US does not supply arms to countries that use them to carry out human rights violations, war crimes and violations of UN resolutions."? Or "The US will not perpetuate the suffering of Third World people to advance its capitalist projects."?

I was talking about intra-national conflict, not about war.  Your post reflects inhumanities to man in war, which I've covered  above and in previous posts.  I was speaking of freedoms and you're speaking of war.  Enough.

I don't agree with Israel's policies and I don't agree with US support for Israel for a HUGE list of reasons (if you're interested, Amira Hass is a great place to start) that is a totally different topic of conversation. The "so what?" is that people are dying, displaced, annexed, d, and d.

And you blame the US?  Why not blame Israel?  How many Palestinians have been killed, displaced, annexxed and the rest?  When it gets to 6 million let me know. 

Your argument rings of anti-semitism (perhaps I'm wrong here) but also that you think Israel should have never been created in 1948, or am I wrong?

Why are people dying in that area of the world?  Because the Israeli's meet force with overwhelming force.  They bring guns to a knife fight. 

I don't agree with the military policies and actions conducted by Sharon in the 70's, but he definitely mellowed out and became less of a "hardliner."  Even Arafat was ready to agree to certain cease fire and land accomodations.  Somehow they both ended up with severe health problems...hmmmm what do you think happened there?  Are you going to blame that on the US?  Or are you going to blame rubber bullets used on rock throwing adolescents on the US?  What's next, was the 3 day war a horrible US atrocity as well?

Sadat was ready to be the forefront of a Muslim/Israeli peace movement and he was assasinated by hard line Arabs.  So don't blame the US for the in that area.  That is self perpetuating.  Each and every time they get close to peace, a hardliner from one side or the other gets rid of the "peacenik."  The surrounding the area we know as "the holy lands" is self perpetuating and will always exist whether the US takes the side of Israel or not.  In fact the Arab nations should be quite glad that the US is taking Israel's side-else those Israeli nukes would have been put into play a long time ago.  And the desert would be a sea of glass right now.

  Do you remember the Green Revolution? You could say that millions of people also starved to directly or indirectly because of American capitalism. In fact, I will say it - a lot of people starve to because of American capitalism. As Vanada Shiva writes, "The contemporary food crisis and famine conditions stem from the globalisation of agriculture through the Green Revolution." (there's a huge, fascinating body of work on this) A lot of people have their own land and farms taken from them because of US-led policies (see land reform programmes).

The green revolution?  More plants growing better and faster and bumper crop yields?  What does that have to do with the US feeding Russia and the rest of the world?  One of the things I remember, and I'm going off of memory here, not off of wikipedia or commondreams or anything, is that the US sent a large contingent of agriculturists to several countries to teach land husbandry.  I also know that this resulted in a large surplus of crops where there had always been shortages before.  So how that contributes to food shortages, I'd really like to know.

The US has starved millions of people?  When?  Where?  Now you're comparing Bush to Stalin?  Stalin killed millions in the Ukraine (Ironic because the Ukraine supplies all the produce to the rest of the USSR) by starving them to .


Now you say "American Capitalism" as if Capitalism is an economic system held only and exclusively by the US.  Interesting.  So the US invented capitalism? 

I find it interesting that you find nothing but fault with the US, yet you chose to become a citizen here.  If it's not too personal why?

  Because we didn't just take in refugees or bring down dictators, we also toppled democratically elected leaders for our own benefit and supported squads and all of this needs to be acknowledged.

Yes, and you're saying which country doesn't have any skeletons in it's closet? 

Whether or not you meant to say "horrible things" about the US, you did.  Some of which I agree with-they are undisputable fact.  Some of which is opinion based upon circumstances with friends and family members and such- as you mentioned in your post.

There is no Utopia.  Human nature is what it is.  The choices we make and directions that we move toward are always based upon perspective and knowledge.  Sometimes it is better for one person to suffer so that 10 can live.  Who makes that choice?  In your opinion it is the US.  In reality it is situationally dictated.

I can understand where you and the world citizenry gather your opinions, I share alot of those opinions.  Your goal, and the goal of many others is that the US withdraw from Iraq in toto.  This cannot be done without a civil war that would make the "atrocities" of the US look like childs play.  Best case...one side kills the other side in a few weeks, Iran moves in and seizes land, Syria and Jordan citizens join the fight for Iraq.  Wost case: both sides continue fighting the war in the streets, both sides send out ambassadors pleading for help, and help arrives for both the war goes on for years.

The world doesn't have the stomach for war, not the images that we see.  I don't have the stomach to watch the beheading of individuals.  I've been on a battlefield and smelled burning flesh.  I've smelled the stench of bowels that opened when greeted the owners, the rotting bodies, and pieces of bodies.  I know that war is horrible.  I know that war is hel-l.  I know that war is total-you can't wash it off.

But I also know that if you send your military forces into harms way, you'd better give them all the tools that they need to accomplish the mission.  Do you know what the military is doing in Iraq?  Rebuilding.  Turning the electric back on.  Getting clean water.  Helping those in need.  Carrying groceries across the street for grandmothers.  Teaching Iraqis how to be police and how to be fair.  Unfortunately if the soldiers and Marines help a Sunni, that angers a Shia.  If they help a Shia, it angers a Sunni.  Those people then strike back.  Self perpetuating .

Force produces resistance (I stole that from you Anne, hope you're not angry.)  Push me and I'll push you back.  This is the equivalent of a schoolyard fight, only in this schoolyard, the principal also gets attacked while trying to stop the fight.

Tell me of atrocities and I'll tell you of war.  War is ugly.  War is hel-l.  War is total.

  [blockquote]quote:


If you're going to BE a cop, be one. But, if not, and if you're so freakin' humanitarian in the face of yet another holocaust, then send your charity to Appalachia, not Afghanistan or Darfur and prepare a will.[/blockquote]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

There are many poor people in Appalachia, it's one of the poorest regions in the US.  The money sent to Appalachia would be of better benefit than the money sent elsewhere.  Also, why not help out at home.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

My own quote, which you also missed. War is total. War should involve horrible , gruesome images, disgusting behavior. It should kill s, there should be collateral damage. There should be carnage like you wouldn't nor couldn't imagine. War should be so filthy and so wrong that humanity doesn't seek to wage it. War is total. It should inconvenience your grandmother, and inconvenience your friends visits home. It should be total.

Wait, I thought you were for the Geneva Conventions at the very least?

This war shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be inconveniencing or killing anyone. War is not inevitable. American CANNOT fix the mess it has created and new solutions need to be considered, including American withdrawal and the presence of a well-planned, truly international peacekeeping force.

I don't agree with Israel's policies and I don't agree with US support for Israel for a HUGE list of reasons (if you're interested, Amira Hass is a great place to start) that is a totally different topic of conversation. The "so what?" is that people are dying, displaced, annexed, d, and d.

And you blame the US? Why not blame Israel? How many Palestinians have been killed, displaced, annexxed and the rest? When it gets to 6 million let me know.

I do blame Israel. I also blame the US for supporting Israel and supplying it with the funds and weapons to carry out their missions.

"n 2005, there were approximately 6.8 million Palestinian refugees and 400,000 internally displaced Palestinians representing 70 percent of the entire Palestinian population worldwide (9.7 million)."

- Survey of Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 2004-2005

So, yes, it's well over 6 million already.

Your argument rings of anti-semitism (perhaps I'm wrong here) but also that you think Israel should have never been created in 1948, or am I wrong?

I'm not even going to get into a conversation where disagreeing with the policies of Isreal gets interpreted as anti-Semitism. I support a two-state solution that includes the 1967 borders, the creation of a true, sovereign nation with control of its own borders and airspace and the right of return.

The green revolution? More plants growing better and faster and bumper crop yields?

It is much more complicated than that. The plants grow better, but need more water and fertilizer and the land becomes useless very quickly. It also kept people from being able to sustain themselves and forced them into the global agricultural market whether they wanted to be or not. The first year after the Green Revolution hit India, there was an artificially-induced famine because the food products were not made available to the poor, many of whom had previously been able to survive off their own farming. The Green Revolution altered huge social structures and led to developmentally induced famine. While it certainly benefited many people, it also led to many new problems that need to be addressed in order to prevent more people for starving to death. The author I quote wrote a fascinating book about it, as have many others.

The US has starved millions of people? When? Where? Now you're comparing Bush to Stalin? Stalin killed millions in the Ukraine (Ironic because the Ukraine supplies all the produce to the rest of the USSR) by starving them to. Now you say "American Capitalism" as if Capitalism is an economic system held only and exclusively by the US. Interesting. So the US invented capitalism?

I say American capitalism because the introduction of capitalist agricultural markets in the Third World was largely US-led, with the US being the largest part of organizations like the WB and IMF. American capitalism benefits from things like land reform and structural adjustment zones more than any other country in the world and they are US-led initiatives. The place of capitalism in the US is quite different than in most other countries, as I'm sure you know.

I find it interesting that you find nothing but fault with the US, yet you chose to become a citizen here. If it's not too personal why?

I have listed many great things about the US. But this thread was about problems.

I became a citizen because I lived in the US since I was 6 years old. I have traveled to 40-something states and find it an absolutely fascinating, beautiful country full of so many incredible cultures and people. I do not consider the US to be my home, but it is as close to a 'childhood home' as I have. I feel deep attachment to it, deep awe for so much of US history and for so much of the creative, intellectual and humanitarian work that happens there. I appreciate the opportunities it sometimes gives people. I wanted to be able to vote in elections, to participate in particular kind of political process in the US. I also want to keep the option open of moving closer to my family in the future and I would not be able to do that without my citizenship since my green card would have been withdrawn after living outside the country for so long.

If you wanted me to list all the problems of Sweden or the UK or Canada, you'd wonder why in the world I'd want to live in or be a citizen of any of those countries as well, I'm sure.

Yes, and you're saying which country doesn't have any skeletons in it's closet?

I have never claimed that other countries don't have them. Every country has problems. But in this thread, we're talking about the US and US has an incredible amount of influence over other countries that I don't think is matched by anyone else.

  Wait, I thought you were for the Geneva Conventions at the very least?

War does not have to be waged outside of the strictures of the Geneva convention to be a horrible thing.  And yes I am for the Geneva Convention.  But I also expect collateral damages.  I expect those collateral and other damages to be shown on the evening news and on the internet.  We need to UNDERLINE the horror of war, not glance over it with a 10 second soundbite.  We also need to encourage others to see that the horrors are committed by ALL those involved, not just one sided.

I do not believe in "limited war."  To me that is an oxymoron, and to have politicians setting arbitrary limits on who can be engaged and who cannot be engaged is ludicrous and places militaries in jeopardy

 
I do blame Israel. I also blame the US for supporting Israel and supplying it with the funds and weapons to carry out their missions.

"n 2005, there were approximately 6.8 million Palestinian refugees and 400,000 internally displaced Palestinians representing 70 percent of the entire Palestinian population worldwide (9.7 million)."

- Survey of Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 2004-2005

So, yes, it's well over 6 million already.

I should have said let me know when it gets to 6million killed.  Sorry.

  I'm not even going to get into a conversation where disagreeing with the policies of Isreal gets interpreted as anti-Semitism.

It's not the disagreement, it's the sentiment ever present that to you, Israel should not exist.  The US wasn't alone in helping to establish the nation of Israel, but it seems that it has been the lone supporter.  Disagreeing with policies is fine.  I'll accept that.  However for Israel to give up the lands that Palestine wants, would be to give Palestine strategic and tactical advantage over the populace of Israel. 

Why don't you mourn for the Israelis that have been blown to bits while they were shopping, or out for a night dancing, or drinking coffee?  You mourn for the retalatory strikes, but not what originated the retalitation?

Again you seemed to have skipped over my argument about Sadat, Arafat and Sharon and others that would have made peace.  The struggle of Palestine is self-perpetuating-any attempts at creating a lasting peace by either side have been quashed by those who benefit from that struggle.  You know this.  This struggle will go on until the end of this world.  It will perpetuate itself and those within into extinction.

 
I say American capitalism because the introduction of capitalist agricultural markets in the Third World was largely US-led, with the US being the largest part of organizations like the WB and IMF. American capitalism benefits from things like land reform and structural adjustment zones more than any other country in the world and they are US-led initiatives. The place of capitalism in the US is quite different than in most other countries, as I'm sure you know.

Ah yes, Roosevelt's "Banana Wars" amongst others.  The Contra-Sandanista war, Che Guevara (one of my heroes btw) and those many other events in history that gave the US a black eye.  I agree.  However, capitalism is not exclusive to the US, which is what I wanted to point out.  This is a global marketplace.

 
It is much more complicated than that. The plants grow better, but need more water and the land becomes useless very quickly. It also kept people from being able to sustain themselves and forced them into the global agricultural market whether they wanted to be or not.[
. The Green Revolution altered huge social structures and led to developmentally induced famine. While it certainly benefited many people, it also led to many new problems. The author I quote wrote a fascinating book about it, as have many others.

You've a great deal of information in this paragraph and I really need to break it down to discuss it effectively.

It is much more complicated than that. The plants grow better, but need more water and the land becomes useless very quickly.

The land becomes useless very quickly because the people do not follow the effective land husbandry techniques that they were taught.  The rotation of crops, for example.  Tilling of the soil, for another example. 

The rainforests of South America are being clear cut at an alarming rate.  Why?  Not necessarily for timber, that is a by product-but mostly the timber is being burned in situ.  The land is being exploited for it's arability.  The famers clearcut a few hundred acres-because it is very fertile land.  But since the farmers don't fertilize or renew the soil, the land "dries up" after a few growing seasons.  Rather than try to renew the soil, which apparently is very expensive, they clearcut and burn another section of forest. 

But the US is to blame.  After all we have Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa.  We have counties that out produce in crop tonnage what entire countries can produce.  So that's the fault of the US.  We sent people to teach farmers how to increase yields and effectively manage their lands.  Since they didn't heed those instructions, it's our fault.  Wow, we are a bad country after all.  I guess we should have sent the "harvest cops" down to make sure they rotate their crops, till the land, and renew the soil.  (All lessons learned during the "Dust Bowl" period of the US.  When the inner states of the US were a 3rd world country.)  Since we didn't want that to happen and we taught other countries about our hardship, that's our fault.

  The first year after the Green Revolution hit India, there was an artificially-induced famine because the food products were not made available to the poor

So now the US is to blame for the most strict caste system in the world, that of India?  I guess that makes sense.  I mean we help people grow their food and all of a sudden the lowest castes are starving.  That's our fault.  They couldn't buy or sell before and they can't buy or sell now...That rascal Reagan, he ruined everything-by teaching them how to grow food. 

Gosh the next thing you'll tell me is that the imperial US also colonized India and taught them all how to speak English. 

You cannot blame the US for a rigid caste system in a different country with a different culture.  I'm guessing it's the US's fault that the Pakistanis and the Indians are still fighting after all these years too.

  The Green Revolution altered huge social structures and led to developmentally induced famine. While it certainly benefited many people, it also led to many new problems.

Change doest that.  IF people do not learn from the mistakes of others, it is not the fault of the US.  Change will do both alleviate old problems and create a whole set of new ones.  That is how life evolves, through change.  Without hardship we wouldn't be able to appreciate the good times.  Without the good times we wouldnt' be able to lament the hardships.

I have never claimed that other countries don't have them. Every country has problems. But in this thread, we're talking about the US and US has an incredible amount of influence over other countries that I don't think is matched by anyone else.

Well said.  And the US should hold sway and have influence over other countries in an unmatched way. 

I know you said you want acknowledgement of misdeeds and atrociites by the US.  That will never happen.  Two main reasons...first is that to do that would make the US appear weak in the world politic.  Second to admit those wrong doings would never solve any problems.  It would fuel the fires of outrage for another generation or two or four or six. 

Teddy Roosevelt used to say "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  This is oft quoted but just as often misunderstood.  He meant  that all the screaming in the world won't change their opinion, but do what you think is right, and back it up.  Follow through with what you say.  Do what you came to do.  $h*t or get off the pot.  Don't look back and second guess yourself because you'll always see where you could have done better by someone else.

Abraham Lincoln said "You can't please all the people all the time."  He and Roosevelt meant the same thing. 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I'm not even going to get into a conversation where disagreeing with the policies of Isreal gets interpreted as anti-Semitism.

It's not the disagreement, it's the sentiment ever present that to you, Israel should not exist. The US wasn't alone in helping to establish the nation of Israel, but it seems that it has been the lone supporter. Disagreeing with policies is fine. I'll accept that. However for Israel to give up the lands that Palestine wants, would be to give Palestine strategic and tactical advantage over the populace of Israel.

Why don't you mourn for the Israelis that have been blown to bits while they were shopping, or out for a night dancing, or drinking coffee? You mourn for the retalatory strikes, but not what originated the retalitation?

I don't think Israel shouldn't exist, I have never said that and don't believe that. Please don't place words in my mouth. I think the creation of it was extremely badly handled, I think both sides have done a lot of wrong, I think a two-state solution is the only way to possibly make peace. Why assume I don't mourn Israelis? I do. I worry for my friends in Israel and their families.

I think the problem is that you seem to believe things are either or. I can mourn both the atrocities of Israel and the atrocities of Palestinian terrorists. I do not support the policies of Israel, but this certainly does not mean I do not think Israel should exist or that I don't deeply care about the well-being of its people.

And I think I'm done now. It's been really interesting talking to you, but this discussion seems to prove to me the limits of online discourse - if we were sitting at a table talking about this you would probably never assume that I am anti-semitic in any way or that I don't mourn Israelis.

I also think my posts have been divorced from their intent and my views are being misunderstood. At this point, I feel like I am repeating myself over and over. Clearly we disagree and that's just the way it is.

I do blame Israel. I also blame the US for supporting Israel and supplying it with the funds and weapons to carry out their missions

 
That tells me everything, right there.
 

The attitude that the entire world owes all its freedoms to the US because of WWII gets kind of old and is, historically speaking, inaccurate

 
This statement is inaccurate. England and France were crumbling under the onslaught of the Third Reich. Since you like to read, you might read some history books and look at how many american soldiers are buried in France. We didn't start the war but we finished it. And we were fighting the war on two fronts. And no amount of "revisionism" or tiredness of the statement can change the fact that we changed the outcome of the war.
 
FWIW, the internet started in America, land of free speech.  Free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. Your american citizenship gurantees your right to free speech.

I must say this is one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time. I will refrain from entering the debate as I acknowledge my limited understanding of the historical and political facts, but applaud inne and xerxes for theirs'.

I am a Canadian, thus having an outsider's perspective. America does have a lot critics but one thing I will say in your defense, is you are not afraid to act. So often in Canada (and the majority of democractic countries) we have the luxury of sitting back and waiting. We wait to see which way the 'wind is blowing', what the risk/cost ratio is, which is the popular political response etc. Why do we have such a luxury? Because we rely on the Americans to make the hard or unpopular decisions. We rely on the Americans to send their soldiers to be killed. We rely on the Americans to 'interrogate' the bad guys. We rely on the Americans to clean up the messes we're too politically correct to touch. The Americans are bullies! And we like it that way. It makes things a lot easier for all of us.

We might not agree with everything the American gov't does (hind sight is 20/20), but I would not like to imagine what this world would look like if they weren't the stronge, dominate country they are- or they simply said to their critics - "Screw you. From now one we just stay home and look after ourselves. You can take care of the rest of the world on your own". Terror attacks in Spain- not OUR problem! Famine in Africa- not OUR problem! Genocide in Dafur-not OUR problem! Natural disaster in Canada-not OUR problem!

JTF2 Operators are not 'troops'. They're like Delta Force.

 
FYI, Delta Force was spec ops, a special team of special forces, armed to the teeth and designed to do maximum damage in a short amount of time, similar to SEALs, who are all about blowing things up. In the case of the hostages in Iran, they were more like Army Rangers, lrrp and personnel extraction, but still a team of death on two feet.
 
A high school chum was a "military advisor" in Honduras during their civil war over 20 years ago. This meant that his gun was loaded only half the time. An "operator" or "military advisor" in-country is fighting without an official declaration of war or action. To believe otherwise is to be mistaken.