How the world views the USA.

Most Americans cannot understand that the world does not view us as the savior, the good guys in white hats. But name another nation sponsoring so many 'regime changes' in recent memory? The following cartoon give an idea we use force not thought to solve problems:



Is it any wonder we are not loved?

Poker

During the 1950s, 1060s and even into the 1970s, Europeans were in the habit of using force but usually mercenaries orb surrogates to effect regime change in third world counties, particularly Africa. The Arab Spring bull shit to overthrow Daffy Gadaffy in Libya was motivated far more by resentment of the Chinese securing oil contracts then any commitment to human freedom. If anything, the Europeans were embracing their demographic destiny as Dhimini in the impending Caliphate by serving as Jannisaries.

It is this cartoon that explains why I have developed such strong, neoisolationists sentiments. The US should drill, drill and drill to achieve energy independence. (Bush Ii started us down this pattern Obama's efforts to screw it up have been unsuccessful, a President Palin would have accelerated it). Once the US is no longer importing foreign oil and is exporting coal (Combined cycle NG power plants are 60% efficient compared to Chines coal fired power plants that are only 30% efficient. Guess who ends up with a competitive advantage?), the US trade deficit will be eliminated. We will have no need to involve ourselves in the Middle East to secure access to oil. With the threat of Sovietband Chines Marxist expansionism evolving into commercial competition with only minor, militaristic threats,, there will be no compelling national interest in maintaining NATO, SEATO, ANZUS and the rest of the alphabet soup of entangling
alliances. The next time there is a conflict in the world, even a genocidal conflict, the US will be at liberty to remain aloof spectators. While the US will hopefully maintain a powerful Navy, the detachment from entangling alliances will free the US from any perceived obligation to intervene in humanitarian crisis such as the recent typhoon or the Indonesian earthquake. Rather than sending in an amphibious assault group lavishly equipped with helicopters and other military equipment that can be used for prompt rescue and relief operations, the US can emulate the aeuropeans by sending a check for a few million dollars.

I find myself in agreement with you except for the last bit. I would rather keep that American generosity as an essential national character trait. I agree that we have no obligation or even the appearance of an obligation. Helping them as best we can is simply what people do for those in need.

I don't want to emulate anything out of Europe. Especially not their cynicism.

namelessfly wrote:During the 1950s, 1060s and even into the 1970s, Europeans were in the habit of using force but usually mercenaries orb surrogates to effect regime change in third world counties, particularly Africa. The Arab Spring bull shit to overthrow Daffy Gadaffy in Libya was motivated far more by resentment of the Chinese securing oil contracts then any commitment to human freedom. If anything, the Europeans were embracing their demographic destiny as Dhimini in the impending Caliphate by serving as Jannisaries.

It is this cartoon that explains why I have developed such strong, neoisolationists sentiments. The US should drill, drill and drill to achieve energy independence. (Bush Ii started us down this pattern Obama's efforts to screw it up have been unsuccessful, a President Palin would have accelerated it). Once the US is no longer importing foreign oil and is exporting coal (Combined cycle NG power plants are 60% efficient compared to Chines coal fired power plants that are only 30% efficient. Guess who ends up with a competitive advantage?), the US trade deficit will be eliminated. We will have no need to involve ourselves in the Middle East to secure access to oil. With the threat of Sovietband Chines Marxist expansionism evolving into commercial competition with only minor, militaristic threats,, there will be no compelling national interest in maintaining NATO, SEATO, ANZUS and the rest of the alphabet soup of entangling
alliances. The next time there is a conflict in the world, even a genocidal conflict, the US will be at liberty to remain aloof spectators. While the US will hopefully maintain a powerful Navy, the detachment from entangling alliances will free the US from any perceived obligation to intervene in humanitarian crisis such as the recent typhoon or the Indonesian earthquake. Rather than sending in an amphibious assault group lavishly equipped with helicopters and other military equipment that can be used for prompt rescue and relief operations, the US can emulate the aeuropeans by sending a check for a few million dollars.

I realized that the last comment about not intervening in disasters is extreme. However; given the ongoing escalation in European cynicism I think that the US refusing to intervene in a few genocides (Obama provoked the ongoing genocide in Syria) and natural disasters just might motivate the Europeans and other nations to reconsider their habitual hostility.

PeterZ wrote:I find myself in agreement with you except for the last bit. I would rather keep that American generosity as an essential national character trait. I agree that we have no obligation or even the appearance of an obligation. Helping them as best we can is simply what people do for those in need.

I don't want to emulate anything out of Europe. Especially not their cynicism.

namelessfly wrote:During the 1950s, 1060s and even into the 1970s, Europeans were in the habit of using force but usually mercenaries orb surrogates to effect regime change in third world counties, particularly Africa. The Arab Spring bull shit to overthrow Daffy Gadaffy in Libya was motivated far more by resentment of the Chinese securing oil contracts then any commitment to human freedom. If anything, the Europeans were embracing their demographic destiny as Dhimini in the impending Caliphate by serving as Jannisaries.

It is this cartoon that explains why I have developed such strong, neoisolationists sentiments. The US should drill, drill and drill to achieve energy independence. (Bush Ii started us down this pattern Obama's efforts to screw it up have been unsuccessful, a President Palin would have accelerated it). Once the US is no longer importing foreign oil and is exporting coal (Combined cycle NG power plants are 60% efficient compared to Chines coal fired power plants that are only 30% efficient. Guess who ends up with a competitive advantage?), the US trade deficit will be eliminated. We will have no need to involve ourselves in the Middle East to secure access to oil. With the threat of Sovietband Chines Marxist expansionism evolving into commercial competition with only minor, militaristic threats,, there will be no compelling national interest in maintaining NATO, SEATO, ANZUS and the rest of the alphabet soup of entangling
alliances. The next time there is a conflict in the world, even a genocidal conflict, the US will be at liberty to remain aloof spectators. While the US will hopefully maintain a powerful Navy, the detachment from entangling alliances will free the US from any perceived obligation to intervene in humanitarian crisis such as the recent typhoon or the Indonesian earthquake. Rather than sending in an amphibious assault group lavishly equipped with helicopters and other military equipment that can be used for prompt rescue and relief operations, the US can emulate the aeuropeans by sending a check for a few million dollars.

You want to teach them a lesson? Why? If you want to isolate yourself from the world, do so. Who cares what Europe thinks of the US? Who cares what foreign free riders think of our policies?

If people want to buy our goods, talk to our companies. Do you want to sell us something? Persuade our consumers. Do they feel threatened by aggressive neighbors? Let them get their own armed forces. Does Russia or Islamics want to take over Europe? Have at it.

That's the bottom line, 'Fly. If you wish to isolate yourself, then be willing to isolate yourself in truth. Isolationism as a means of influencing other nations is almost like an empty threat. Everyone knows it is temporary, like a child holding his/her breath.

So, I am all for isolating ourselves to a large extent. I am not willing to ignore those that need help in natural disasters without severe extenuating circumstances. America may isolate itself from other nations, but Americans are people first and have obligations to other people. That obligation is personal to each individual and not something to pawn off on others through some sort of "social" or national obligation.

namelessfly wrote:I realized that the last comment about not intervening in disasters is extreme. However; given the ongoing escalation in European cynicism I think that the US refusing to intervene in a few genocides (Obama provoked the ongoing genocide in Syria) and natural disasters just might motivate the Europeans and other nations to reconsider their habitual hostility.

I recognize the flags of Germany, Britain, and US.
The other two I guess at.
If the Map-Addict doesn't know them, who will?
Most MAPS do not have flags on them.

HTM

pokermind wrote:Most Americans cannot understand that the world does not view us as the savior, the good guys in white hats. But name another nation sponsoring so many 'regime changes' in recent memory? The following cartoon give an idea we use force not thought to solve problems:



Is it any wonder we are not loved?

Poker

Peter,
do you *really* want so many countries to
have battle-worthy armed forces?
They, and their aggressive neighbors, might possibly
decide not to fight each other,
but instead get together and use them against US!

Nameless,
seems that China took your advice, and delayed sending
their Big Hospital Ship to help the Phillipines.
Look at the world-wide reaction to that delay.
Can we say that the Chinese "lost face?"
Sometimes the US is on the receiving end of the help.
After that Oregon volcano decades ago,
Japan sent help to us.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

PeterZ wrote:[snip - htm]
Do they feel threatened by aggressive neighbors?
Let them get their own armed forces.
[snip - htm]

namelessfly wrote:I realized that the last comment about
not intervening in disasters is extreme.

Howard,

Yes, I do. They have to begin acting like grownups and protect themselves from hostile neighbors. Why must we pay for their protection with blood and treasure? As for ganging up on the US, the EU can't even organize their own international financial system. What makes you think they can organize an international military effort? Our navy can protect us from much of what they can actually achieve. The same goes for China and India.

The idea of being the world's police force just to keep those who might attack us from doing so is more than a bit counter productive. It really hasn't worked until now. Those other nations resent the heck out of us for even trying. I have to agree with them that such a policy is condescending in the extreme. I believe it is much better to let the world go their merry way and deal with their own messes.

Besides, all those armed nations will keep the US just as honest about our foreign adventurism as any other nation. Which is a good thing.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Peter,
do you *really* want so many countries to
have battle-worthy armed forces?
They, and their aggressive neighbors, might possibly
decide not to fight each other,
but instead get together and use them against US!

Nameless,
seems that China took your advice, and delayed sending
their Big Hospital Ship to help the Phillipines.
Look at the world-wide reaction to that delay.
Can we say that the Chinese "lost face?"
Sometimes the US is on the receiving end of the help.
After that Oregon volcano decades ago,
Japan sent help to us.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

1) This is how grown-ups behave?
Grown-ups like Zimmerman and Martin, perhaps?
(Had Martin had a gun, he might have shot Zimmerman,
and then claimed "Standing His Ground in Self-Defense.)

I did not say that it would be the EU doing it.
I was contemplating an ad-hoc alliance.
My point is that they can't do it if they lack armies.

2) I feel that I need an in-person discussion for this.
Posts here don't suffice, I ween.

3) I must agree with you on this one,
or else forfeit my status of

Pointy-Headed Liberal.

PeterZ wrote:Howard,

1) Yes, I do. They have to begin acting like grownups and protect themselves from hostile neighbors. Why must we pay for their protection with blood and treasure? As for ganging up on the US, the EU can't even organize their own international financial system. What makes you think they can organize an international military effort? Our navy can protect us from much of what they can actually achieve. The same goes for China and India.

2) The idea of being the world's police force just to keep those who might attack us from doing so is more than a bit counter productive. It really hasn't worked until now. Those other nations resent the heck out of us for even trying. I have to agree with them that such a policy is condescending in the extreme. I believe it is much better to let the world go their merry way and deal with their own messes.

3) Besides, all those armed nations will keep the US
just as honest about our foreign adventurism as any
other nation. Which is a good thing.

PeterZ

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Peter,
do you *really* want so many countries to
have battle-worthy armed forces?
They, and their aggressive neighbors, might possibly
decide not to fight each other,
but instead get together and use them against US!

Nameless,
seems that China took your advice, and delayed sending
their Big Hospital Ship to help the Phillipines.
Look at the world-wide reaction to that delay.
Can we say that the Chinese "lost face?"
Sometimes the US is on the receiving end of the help.
After that Oregon volcano decades ago,
Japan sent help to us.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

So the world is truly so debased as to be driven to violence simply when given the means to do so? That the only reason a nation does not engage in violence is that the US has denied them those methods? That every nation is comparable to Trayvon Martin; a thug that seeks violence against an apparently less well defended foe?

If these assumptions are true, Howard, it argues even more for every nation to be armed to the teeth. It also crystalizes my desire to stop funding and manning the force necessary to protect those unwilling to do this for themselves in even the smallest way. I am open for mutual defense treaties where all signatories participate in comparable levels. Free riders need not apply.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:1) This is how grown-ups behave?
Grown-ups like Zimmerman and Martin, perhaps?
(Had Martin had a gun, he might have shot Zimmerman,
and then claimed "Standing His Ground in Self-Defense.)

I did not say that it would be the EU doing it.
I was contemplating an ad-hoc alliance.
My point is that they can't do it if they lack armies.

snip