[mike777]

helene_t, on Apr 14 2007, 03:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 12 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Isn't america great?

i'd say that a country that freed a large part of the earth, east and west, from the tyranny that had encaptured it has at least a kernel of greatness

but a simple "thanks" would have done

Actually, I'm thankful to the U.S. soldiers who freed us from the Nazis, as well as to the U.S. politicians who made them do that.

This, however, means absolutely nothing for my feelings towards present-day U.S. politicians. We have an anualy ceremoni in Breda where Canadian WW II veterans come over to be celebrated by the locals. I think this is a beautiful thing but damn any North American politicans (in this case Canadians, but similar ceremioies involve U.S., British, Australian and recently Morocan veterans) who might try to take advantage of this to polish their own glory.

If we agree that the U.S. has a kernel of "greatness" then it makes the current U.S. government even more contemptible. If Bush had transformed an already lousy country into a slightly more lousy country, it would not have been such a big deal. But before Bush, the U.S. goverment was generally respected abroad as well as at home.

Granted Jimmy's country stinks....are there any foreign countries in 2007 you respect or do they all stink?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Apr 14 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Granted Jimmy's country stinks....are there any foreign countries in 2007 you respect or do they all stink?

Not applicable. The U.S. does not stink. The U.S. government stinks and the U.S. smells, in many ways, a lot less good than before the present government.

But to answer your question anyway: I don't think the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. government has that much parallels in other countries. North Korea, Russia and Zimbabwe may deserve to be mentioned but that's not new. Generally, political standards have improved over time and I think that trend will be restored in the U.S. after the next elections.

[pbleighton]

"If we agree that the U.S. has a kernel of "greatness" then it makes the current U.S. government even more contemptible."

Exactly.

Peter

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Apr 13 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

If you are talking about WW2, then "yes", the US did a good job in Europe and the Pacific, but again they entered after Pearl Harbour, and not in the early days of Hitler's aquisition of Europe.

hi ron... yeah, i was mainly talking about ww2 and mainly venting about whereagles' sarcastic remark... it's true, we didn't enter that war at the beginning, but we did enter it, and by doing so (imo) changed the course of world history... the same goes for reagan's two terms with his emphasis on 'star wars', a concept that most feel led to the collapse of the former ussr

fwiw, i do think people have to come down on the side of liberty or the side of security... if liberty, you make the country as secure as possible but with no loss of freedom... if security, you make the country as free as possible but with no loss of security... it's my view that if one of the goals of america's enemies is an assualt on her foundation of liberty, our present course grants them a victory

helene said:

If Bush had transformed an already lousy country into a slightly more lousy country, it would not have been such a big deal. But before Bush, the U.S. goverment was generally respected abroad as well as at home.

one of my pet peeves when my kids were growing up was to see them do the wrong thing because of what was then called peer pressure... to me that term simply means, caring about what others say or do when we ourselves are acting properly (within the framework of our beliefs)... so my view is that the u.s. should adhere to the principles upon which it was founded and not care one iota what anyone else thinks... a sort of damn the torpedoes, be true to yourself

[Winstonm]

I know for me America lost its claim to greatness when Camelot died, although I didn't know it at the time.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

I know for me America lost its claim to greatness when Camelot died, although I didn't know it at the time.

sorry to hear that, winston... i just think america has done too much good, and continues to do so, for her own citizens and those of many other countries in the world to make such a statement

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

I know for me America lost its claim to greatness when Camelot died, although I didn't know it at the time.

sorry to hear that, winston... i just think america has done too much good, and continues to do so, for her own citizens and those of many other countries in the world to make such a statement

I think all of us who lived in a part of the 1950's have a misguided concept as we remember when or at least were told about the times when the U.S. was a great country - that was then; this is now.

Here a some statistics comparing the U.S. to Northern Europe, Japan, and Canada. (12 industrialized nations)

Category U.S. rank

Infant Mortality - #1
2-paycheck families - #1
Average household debt - #1
CEO pay - #1
Poverty level - #1
Murder rate - #1
Imprisonment rate - #1

Average household savings - Last
Trade balance - Last
Size of Middle Class - Last
Population covered by public health care - Last

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

one of my pet peeves when my kids were growing up was to see them do the wrong thing because of what was then called peer pressure... to me that term simply means, caring about what others say or do when we ourselves are acting properly (within the framework of our beliefs)... so my view is that the u.s. should adhere to the principles upon which it was founded and not care one iota what anyone else thinks... a sort of damn the torpedoes, be true to yourself

I like the idea of democracy, basically meaning that popular opinion trumps everything else. If it's really true that a majority (well, slightly different: the largest and decisive fraction) of the U.S. electorate of the first half of this decade, by voting Bush and republican congressmen, expressed a conscious desire to trash elementary human rights at home and abroad, to extent the President's power beyond what the constitution grants him, to create the largest deficit in the nation's history etc etc, then so be it.

Everyone has the right to try to influence public opinion, but what some 200+ YO document says about how the U.S. was originally supposed to be managed is, in my view, not directly relevant to current political debate. Of course to the extent that said document is still legally binding, it's relevant in a legal context. And a certain rigidity in the constitution is probably desirable.

As for peer pressure .... it's one of my pet peeves as well. But another pet peeve of mine is the analogy between the autonomy of an individual and the autonomy of a country/state/county/township/etc. The autonomy of an organizational unit of people does not have a value in itself. The autonomy of the U.S. can only be justified by reference to the interests of individuals (typically U.S. citizens), just like the autonomy of a multinational company, or a multinational blogger community or whatever. Groups of people, when defined on the basis of a shared attribute like "the Dutch", "the Europeans", "the women" etc leave me absolutely cold.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Everyone has the right to try to influence public opinion, but what some 200+ YO document says about how the U.S. was originally supposed to be managed is, in my view, not directly relevant to current political debate.

In my view, Helene, what that 200-year old document says is the debate. More than a management guide for the U.S., the U.S. consitution spells out the division of power between the government and the governed. It states the principles that are required to be followed to guarantee freedom is not corrupted. Although the writers' experience with power came from the English monarchy, the safeguards for individual liberty they ensured are as meaningful today as 200 years ago because the nature of power does not change.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

I know for me America lost its claim to greatness when Camelot died, although I didn't know it at the time.

sorry to hear that, winston... i just think america has done too much good, and continues to do so, for her own citizens and those of many other countries in the world to make such a statement

I think all of us who lived in a part of the 1950's have a misguided concept as we remember when or at least were told about the times when the U.S. was a great country - that was then; this is now.

Here a some statistics comparing the U.S. to Northern Europe, Japan, and Canada. (12 industrialized nations)~~~

one of richard's pet sayings concerns making the good the enemy of the best... in your opinion, would it result in a net plus or minus to the rest of the world if the usa was to withdraw from the world stage and become isolationist?

helene said:

If it's really true that a majority (well, slightly different: the largest and decisive fraction) of the U.S. electorate of the first half of this decade, by voting Bush and republican congressmen, expressed a conscious desire to trash elementary human rights at home and abroad, to extent the President's power beyond what the constitution grants him, to create the largest deficit in the nation's history etc etc, then so be it.

helene, i think we both know that by voting as they did the us population was not making a decision to trash our constitution... that's one reason i wrote what i wrote above concerning liberty vs. security, "... it's my view that if one of the goals of america's enemies is an assualt on her foundation of liberty, our present course grants them a victory"

i just think that we as a country have grown too lazy to care muvh (there are exceptions)... as long as we, as "Groups of people, when defined on the basis of a shared attribute like "the Dutch", "the Europeans", "the women" etc," put our own interests above the principles of a constitutional republic, it can only get worse

[Winstonm]

Quote

one of richard's pet sayings concerns making the good the enemy of the best... in your opinion, would it result in a net plus or minus to the rest of the world if the usa was to withdraw from the world stage and become isolationist?

My view is that the reason for a military is to ensure an invasion or or military attack against the U.S. could be defended. During the cold war, the U.S.S.R. was a direct threat as they had the ability to launch long-range nuclear weapons that could strike the U.S. In that case, preparing a defense against that longrange threat was proper. So, in a military sense, I would be an isolationist unless an outside threat to another country required aid - in this sense I still support the Kuwait action to drive out Iraq.

Following this concept, we would not have been militarily involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Enonomically, this is not possible. I am unsure as to the benefits to the U.S. of free trade, so withhold opinion on that point; however, I believe we must be fastidious in measuring whether the benefits of free trade are being supplied to corporate bottom lines only or whether the working class is benefitting as well.

[slothy]

LOL

seems my soap-box isnt as sturdy and as tall as some others (and not as full of soap)

so i might refrain from adding to this thread

<although paradoxically i just did>

[Winstonm]

slothy, on Apr 15 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

LOL

seems my soap-box isnt as sturdy and as tall as some others (and not as full of soap)

so i might refrain from adding to this thread

<although paradoxically i just did>

It's not paradoxical at all. You have simply added a needle to this thread.