America's Relationship with the World (moral, hell, moral, verse)

[Allan]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

I'm not sure as to your specific question...however, according to the U.S. census of 2002, about 12.1% of Americans live in poverty (according to money income excluding capital gains) see http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...r&dtable5.html

I do not want to make something out of this but the initial point was that 20 or 30 years ago America was feeling the pinch and progressively they've economiclly clawed their way back by investing overseas and of course getting the internal economy moving.

It doesn't take much difference to change the balance.

If we both have a $100 And I give you $20, now you have $120 and I have $80. This money can be used to get an internal economy moving.

I may not have been plain in my writing.

In NZ, various governments let overseas interests in. It cost many jobs.

In the past history countries plundered natural resources.

It now seems it is a deepening philosophy for them to get involved through business in other countries economies.

This is an observation and may be part of the bad feeling toward the U.S.A ------because perhaps Europe wants more share.----

A small minority would have anti U.S.A feelings in this country but many would wonder about our own governments agendas.

A tough business environment pressures the working population, with education pressures on young people.

Our suicide rate is almost double our auto accident death rate.

[Jaiket]

Here in Britain, America bashing was a favourite pastime of most until quite recently. The American foriegn policy, corporate power, and the undermining of democracy around the world by American interests are hideous problems. The UN security council, the IMF, the WTO, and the world bank are all American playthings which are disruptive to the entire world besides American citizens or more specifically the USA's powerful corporate and fanancial sector.

However America is simply looking after its interests which as far as the superpowers go is a requirement. Infact, I'd hazard a guess that the American empire has been the most tolerant of all so far. The question that I often ponder is , why does the normal US citizen supports this? The benefits to American companies and traders are not passed on or shared as far as I see. The public transport system has been described by Americans I have spoken with as possibly the worst in the developed world. The health service is a shambolic celebration of inequality where the rich are treated but the poor can F*** Off And Die.

I may have misunderstood, not being from the USA, anyone have any insights though. Why does the American taxpayer support America's international mischief?

[Mr Spinkles]

The public transport system in the U.S. is not nearly as good as Europe's for a number of reasons, the main one being that most Americans live in sprawling suburban areas (making public transport not as practical) while most Europeans live in dense urban areas.

America's health system may be inferior compared to many European countries, but American doctors, hospitals and health professionals are some of the best in the world. I have been to many, many American hospitals, and I have been to one government-funded hospital in Great Britain. I would take any of the American hospitals any day. A British friend told me that the private hospitals in Britain are far superior (for those who can afford them). Anyway, the way you characterize the American health system implies some sort of underlying class warfare, which is totally off base.

What do you mean by 'international mischief'? If you mean the war in Iraq, I'd like to pose a counter question: why do you NOT support removing Saddam Hussein?

[trishtrish10]

president bush sent me a letter last year explaining that 40 other countries had joined in support by sending troops. he also thanked me for my support of his decision to go to war.

100,000 iraquis died compared to less than a thousand u.s. soldiers who are our heroes. i just wish none had to die, but bush had the strength and technology to free the oppressed in Iraq and calm down their neighbors. i sure hope he finds osama before the election. i bet they do!

but let's face it, the real holocaust we face is abortion. over 40 million babies in this country alone have been massacred. silent death

[civilcynic]

Why is every death of a human being less significant than the pre-born???????????

[trishtrish10]

all they have is original sin on their souls. we are all born with it. they haven't had much of a chance to experience love and others. it all has to do with timing. most aborted babies go to limbo and are destined for heaven i hope. some resent their mothers so much they hate God for it and the world, and could end up in hell for their non-repentance of their resentment. abortion in God's eyes is a horrorible thing and much more deadly than u may think. it's murder with a flair and hiddden from the public. the congressmen won't allow a film of an abortion to shown in congress it's so terrible, yet some support it. they are in denial of God's Word. he spoke and matter was created.

[trishtrish10]

i have excellent doctors, a wonderful filipino psychiatrist and an english general practioner. americans are of every nationality. we have a melting pot. no one in this country is risking his life to get out, although i wished i could have taken myself and a few friends to another planet during clinton's reign. my primary loyalty is to my pope then my country but one doesn't separate the two, except justly.

there are many people in this country who complain about the cost of health insurance and fair wages, not just abortion. i am one of them. those issues need to be properly addressed by our leaders and acted upon. i am patriotic but find it frustrating. i am forgiving, letting God punish if it's his will. i admire clinton for his terrible charismatic way in tolerating the massacre of viable babies and illegal drugs. his rule is over but we have to deal with his wife now who is anti-life, woman, and child. although she is a female she oppresses her own gender through support of artificial birth control, sterilization, abortion, maybe euthanasia, but may be against capital punishment. she is shaky on many issues and needs to cure the pope of parkinson's disease.

[civilcynic]

LOL, Trish.....is there any post under any subject that you do not end up addressing the abortion issue??

As for those who support abortion rights like the Clintons...they are neither pro-abortion or anit-life...They are pro-choice. Unlike you, pro-choice people believe in individual rights based on a person's circumstances, cultural and/or religious beliefs. They believe that the decision to have an abortion should remain between the woman, her doctor and her personal religious beliefs.

Pro-life individuals are anti-choice and, as noted above, put the welfare of the pre-born above the well-being of living, breathing human beings They do not think that woman have the right or the capacity to make an informed decision for themselves in regards to abortion. In religious terms, which is often the basis for their anti-abortion fervor, is anti-abortionists want to take away Free Will of women.


Ironically, God gave us all Free Will. It is one of the risks of being human and where our religious Faith attempts to provide guidance so we use our Free Will appropriately.
Unfortunately, not all religions or even denominations of the same religion can agree on the abortion issue. And what about atheists...should they be forced to follow a religious creed they don't beleive or agree with?

Is abortion a sin, murder under any and all circumstances? Is abortion the act of using an IUD or the Pill or is it further along that it becomes abortion? There are alot of varying beliefs....some based on religion...some not. If you believe in God and believe that abortion (whenever/whatever you define it as)is a sin and forbidden by YOUR GOD or your belief system than don't do it.

For the Faithful who believes that God opposes abortion...why not let God judge those who chose abortion.....certainly he will be just in His punishment. Forcing your will on others certainly will do nothing to enhance their beliefs in your religious doctrine nor will it 'save' you or them!

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

What do you mean by 'international mischief'? If you mean the war in Iraq, I'd like to pose a counter question: why do you NOT support removing Saddam Hussein?

No I didn't mean the war in Iraq, or not intentionally. Now that you mention it, yes, it was another empirical crime. The removal of Saddam Hussien? the same Saddam who was an ally only a few years before? There was no reason for Americans to involve themselves with the man. His removal was a good thing though as dictators are not historically very kind to their people.

I was talking about the USA's veto in global institutions like the UN's security council, or the IMF (and the mischief the country gets up to with these powers). I definitely do not wish to offend any Americans, every government is up to things most citezens would disaprove of I'm sure (I know the British goverment is selling off public assets to private, often foriegn, companies and then using taxpayers money to pay for it - as in the companies pays about a 10th and the taxpayer covers the rest).

Anyway I'll ask you then why do you think foriegn governments should intervene in such nations as Iraq, and not those with brutal autocratic rule and no wealth in natural resources? As far as I'm aware some South American nations have terrible rulers but as long as US firms can plunder their wealth nothing is said.

[Mr Spinkles]

truthseekingsoul-- You didn't really answer my question, why do you NOT support removing Saddam Hussein?

To which U.S. vetoes in the UN, and to what mischief with the IMF are you referring? I don't know how to answer your question as to why many Americans support these actions if I don't know what actions you mean in the first place.

About the Iraq war, I'm not clear as to what you're saying. On the one hand, you say

it was another empirical crime.

This would suggest to me that tyranny, genocide, mass murder, refusal to comply with various U.N. resolutions/inspectors' demands on chemical and biological weapons/the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the Persian Gulf War, and the violation of virtually every international law regarding human rights is not enough to justify the removal/forceful compliance of a totalitarian government.

On the other hand, you say

His removal was a good thing though as dictators are not historically very kind to their people.

Here, you seem to be saying that the above reasons were, in fact, good enough to justify removal/compliance by force. Which is it?

You go on to say:

why do you think foriegn governments should intervene in such nations as Iraq, and not those with brutal autocratic rule and no wealth in natural resources?

I think foreign foreign governments should intervene in nations like Iraq and all those with brutal autocratic rule, even the ones in South America. Whether they are "foreign" governments or not is irrelevant...we are all human beings, and no government that executes political prisoners with plastic shredders, rapes wives and daughters, and uses death squads to murder and secretly bury civilians by the tens of thousands has any right to rule.

The question is, what form of intervention, and to what extent, is appropriate? Military force should only be used as a last resort...with Saddam, diplomacy, economics, and the threat of force had all been used with zero success to get him to comply with U.N. demands and the ceasefire agreement signed after the first Gulf War. Military force is not a wise strategy in dealing with every brutal totalitarian regime on Earth, and even if it was, we can't use military force on all of them simultaneously. At any rate, Saddam was by far the most brutal dictator since Stalin, so any strategy for ridding the world of tyrants should begin with him.

the same Saddam who was an ally only a few years before?

Saddam was never an ally. The U.S. government gave him support during the Iran - Iraq War because Iran was winning. Had Iran acheived a decisive victory over Iraq, Iran would have become an even bigger threat, with much of the world's oil supply and a strong position from which to invade Arab neighbors. Fortunately, the war ended in a stalemate that weakened both governments.

It doesn't surprise me that many European governments and Russia opposed the war in Iraq....who do you think sold Saddam Hussein his MiG fighter planes and nuclear technology? Russia and France, respectively.

It does surprise me, a little, that so many European people were against the war...I think it only makes apparent a deepening transatlantic distrust that began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.