|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1722
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/10/eng20050310_176350.html
| Quote: | Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?
Bennett: No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country.
That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period. |
The US has been a world leader, but apparently may be loosing this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061014140052AAkAqbx
| Quote: | Having said that, since World War II the United States has been the undisputed leader of the Western world. Before the United States, the British Empire was the world's leading power for two centuries. The United States and Great Britain share similar values. Nobody alive today can remember a time when one of these nations was not the major force in the world. Certainly, neither the United States nor Britain has been a perfect world leader. But it is equally certain that domination by other nations would have made the world a very different place. A look back at fairly recent history well illustrates this fact.
A post-Anglo-Saxon world is frightening to contemplate. Whoever takes over as the dominant power will not share the same values as the United States and Britain. Maybe some of those values would remain, but certainly not all. How it might happen is a topic for another question. But, for the moment, imagine the unimaginable-Washington gone. What would happen?
At first glance, the cultural values that the US has allowed to spread over much of the occidental world (and slowly creeping into the East) would not be present. Britney Spears and 50 Cent wouldn't be idolized, we would have other artists coming from a much different background, bringing forth much different values. Imagine how different the cinematic world would be without the driving force and innovations brought forth by the many people working in this field in the US.
The economic world would be completely different, granted, the globalization phenomenon would most certainly persist, but the most viable state to take up top spot would be China. With china controlling the vast majority of the world's economy, would it allow its political and social values influence world changing decisions?
And just imagine a world without the presence of the US armed forces abroad, the landscape would be much different. I can't even begin to list how much the world would be a different place without them. In 2006, Foreign Policy Magazine named Iraq as the fourth most unstabilized nation in the world. Can you imagine how many lives have been affected by the presence of the US in Iraq, both at home and abroad?
In summary, pardon me if I haven't been able to answer your question with hard-hitting evidence and facts as to how the world ''could or would be'' no answer of this type could be justified, since any and all would be purely hypothetical, not to mention of subjective nature. |
True, maybe there is no general consensus of aspiring to be world leaders. It is just a fact that the US has been for quite some time but sad now that some are looking down on this. Guess it is the result of too many Bush flounders of foreign policy, among other things such as economic downturn etc and a new re-shaping world. (Ha, but who cares anyways if the world would be with no such types of Britney Spears or the likes:)) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And this one is good, more representative:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/345.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=345&nid=&id=
| Quote: | World Publics Reject US Role as the World Leader
April 17, 2007
Majorities Still Want US to Do Its Share in Multilateral Efforts,
Not Withdraw from International Affairs
Mixed Views on US Overseas Bases
Full Report (PDF)
Questionnaire (PDF)
Methodology/Research Partners (PDF)
CCGA+_ViewsUS_img.jpgA multinational poll finds that publics around the world reject the idea that the United States should play the role of preeminent world leader. Most publics say the United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should, fails to take their country’s interests into account and cannot be trusted to act responsibly.
A US Navy CVN-69 Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (US Navy photo)
But the survey also finds that majorities in most countries want the United States to participate in international efforts to address world problems. Views are divided about whether the United States should reduce the number of military bases it has overseas. Moreover, many publics think their country’s relations with the United States are improving.
Americans largely agree with the rest of the world: most do not think the United States should remain the world’s preeminent leader and prefer that it play a more cooperative role. They also believe United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should.
This is the fourth in a series of reports based on a worldwide poll about key international issues conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with polling organizations around the world. The larger study includes polls in China , India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia—plus the Palestinian territories.
The publics polled represent about 56 percent of the world’s population. Not all questions were asked in all countries.
Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org notes that this poll reinforces the conclusions of other recent global surveys, which have found that the United States’ image abroad is bad and growing worse. But he added that it goes further, exploring what kind of role the international community would like the United States to play in the world.
“This survey shows that despite the negative views of US foreign policy, publics around the world do not want the United States to disengage from international affairs, but rather to participate in a more cooperative and multilateral fashion,” Kull said.
The United States’ Role in the World
CCGA+_ViewsUS_graph2.jpgMajorities in all 15 of the publics polled about the United States’ role in the world reject the idea that “as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems.” However majorities in only two publics (Argentina and the Palestinian territories) say that the United States “should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems.” The preferred view in all of the other cases is that the United States “should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.”
In Asia, large majorities embrace the idea that the United States should play a cooperative role in South Korea (79%) and China (68%). A majority of Filipinos (55%) and a plurality of Indians (42%) also take this view, but they are among the few publics with substantial numbers saying the United States should play the role of the preeminent world leader: 20 percent in the Philippines and 34 percent in India. Thais are also relatively reluctant to support a cooperative role (47%), but very few endorse a preeminent role (8%) or disengagement (18%), while 27 percent declined to answer.
In Europe, the French are those most emphatic in their support for a cooperative role (75%), followed by Armenia (58%). A majority of Ukrainians (52%) also support this position, but an unusually high number (34%) supports US disengagement. In Russia, a plurality (42%) favors a cooperative role, but this is barely more than the percentage (38%) that favors disengagement.
In Latin America, about six in ten Peruvians (61%) and Mexicans (59%) believe the United States should cooperate with other countries to solve international problems. However, as mentioned above, Argentines are one of only two publics favoring US withdrawal from international efforts with 55 percent taking this position and 34 percent in favor of cooperation.
In the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians differ sharply. A majority of Palestinians favor US disengagement (55%) while more than a third (36%) prefers cooperation. Israelis are more in line with most other publics in that 62 percent favor US cooperation, but they also show the second highest level of support (after India) for the US taking the role of preeminent leader (24%).
Americans match the French in their support for the United States doing its share together with other nations (75%), with small numbers favoring a preeminent role (10%) or isolationism (12%).... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1722
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a relief to me to read the numbers in that last report; apparently Americans too feel that the US should step back from a "world dominance" stance -- so perhaps it's only the hysterical America-firsters, like the writer of the previously-quoted Yahoo opinion, who are horrified at the prospect of a swing in influence. Xenophobia is alive and well. . .
"Can you imagine how many lives have been affected by the presence of the US in Iraq, both at home and abroad?" I assume he/she implies that we've had a positive influence on Iraqi citizens; I only wish that were so !
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
is it being reported in the US that one of the conditions upon which the Iraqi Government insists is a timetable for the Americans to get out ? Latest is the requirement for the Green Zone to be returned to the Iraqis. (US troops should live in camps outside the towns until they are withdrawn).
of course, listening to McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" and now talking about "funny" ways to kill Iranians, if America does launch a (nuclear) attack on Iran - whether suckered into it by Israel or for the perverted amusement of McCain - your troops won't be going anywhere.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1722
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
To answer your first question: yes it is.
Here's Mr Obama's recipe for Iraq, from today's NY Times:
July 14, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA
CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: .... and the psychosis of the American Foreign Policy |
|
|
Again we have a wonderful sleeper topic that pinpoints the explicit problem.
Great contributions, great read, and great opinion from Barack, and Rich, and Steve, Worlddesign, archimotion, antisthenes et al!!!
I had never found a good enough word for the American "fall from grace" as it were, where we went from the good guy-white hat days post WW2, to the arrogant "stick-our-nose-into-everyone's-culture", of today, and start world-wars along the way.
Exceptionalism. A great word is born, in my book.
But let me add the other side of the coin to thinking we are the best, which is already mentioned a million times before me, and that is ENTITLEMENT to do the evil deeds our government deems necessary.
Exceptionalism thinking we are the best, and Entitlement to do the very worst, including the un-intentional collateral killing of people in large numbers.
Other examples, we have 12,000 nukes, yet we forbid Iran from developing one and we will talk ourselves into a war to prove it?
We have cluster bombs, and white phosphorous, yet we are scandalized at Iran developing car bombs.
Why not all of us be scandalized and upset about ALL the munitions the world develops, and all the tragedies we are involved with? I hear we even export cattle prods and tear gas!
But can I add the psychotic nature, the almost hypnotic state we are living in, where we are preached "Freedom and Democracy", yet talk torture in the White House, and impose sanctions against entire populations of civilians.
Or we talk "regime change" in old Iraq yet we assist in the covert removal of leaders.
Or we talk about ordinary people electing Presidents, yet we have an Electoral College who might elect someone else.
Exceptionalism being told we are the best, and Entitlement to do the worst.
Can America accept simply being "one among equals"?
Our exceptionalism and entitlement attitudes are killing us.
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Forgot to add... |
|
|
Greatest tune, great beat, sadly dysfunctional lifestyle... reminds me of American Foreign Policy...
Pink in ..."Don't let me get me, I'm a hazard to myself"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx10ZrVeKBk
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ed, SDR - the problem is that McCain is the Republican Presidential Candidate and Obama is the Democrat Presidential Candidate.
for those listening to them around the world, they have equal status - except that McCain is likely to be much, much closer to the views of the current President.
will America pull out its troops in a careful and orderly manner - or will it launch an unprovoked attack on Iran ?
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: answer: I don't know, nobody knows |
|
|
I'm the guy driving the taxi, so I am good at Tarot, thanks for asking.
The answer is no.
America will not launch an unprovoked attack on Iran. Period.
But it is a matter of semantics, right?
If the past is prologue, I say the problem is decades in the making, with assasinations in Lebanon, rocket attacks from Hamas/Hezbollah into Israel, the Iranian hostage story, the torture/murder of the CIA guy Buckley, the destabilizing Syria, the IEDs and arming of Shia tribes in Iraq, the bombing of the Marine Barracks... my guess is that the other Arab nations don't like Ahmedinejad either, so most have given the classic Godfather quote...
"We have a stone in our shoe"...
And now they are getting richer with their own oil?
The head of the 7-headed Hydra is perceived to be Ahmedinejad, certainly not the Iranian people.
And he/the Revolutionary Guard has never gotten a bloody nose.
This is where the world is at, carrier fleets on site, GIs, coalition troops in place... Clint Eastwood standing over the killer... " I bet you're feeling kinda lucky, like ...was it 5 shots or six...and come to think of it, I've forgotten myself, so what is it, Do you feel lucky, punk? Go ahead, punk, make my day."
And how did the movie end?
America will not pull the trigger. We won't have to. And all this is probably why I still drive a cab.
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1722
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Young friends of mine traveling in Africa this month report much interest in the American election -- and a clear knowledge of the differences between the two candidates !
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
until after the election, they are both potential Presidents.
and their words must be seen in that light.
certainly a lot of people hope that Obama proves to be a better person and gets elected.
it ain't over till it's over.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
attacking Iran ?
this is what George Galloway has to say:
http://- abuse alert -- abuse alert -/article20281.htm
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1165
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
another link to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 690
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: who just said this minutes ago? |
|
|
George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq—they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government—not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.
"Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea. . . [F]or far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
