Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by trzy
Afr0m@n: The war stayed cold because of the US counterbalance, especially in Europe during the decades before ICBMs became widespread.

The war didn't stay cold between superpower proxies...

Nope, unfortunately it didn't. Anyone who thinks that the world has generally been more "peaceful" since WWII (whether due to nuclear weapons or any other excuse, including US dominance or UN power) needs only to look at all the conflict that has happened since in southeast Asia, in Africa, in the middle east, and even Latin America.

It's been a slow burn for the most part.

Maybe compared to WWI and WWII. But how does it compare to other time periods? I don't know but if someone told me they researched it and came to the conclusion that we're living in some of the most violent decades in history, my gut reaction would be to accept it initially.

On the one hand, there are a lot more people alive than ever before, but on the other hand, the raw numbers of people killed in wars during the 20th century (even post-WWII) is pretty staggering.

Quote:Original post by trzy
You mean the development process that America played a crucial part in? After WWI, the US was opposed to the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. After WWII, it was evident that the US had to step in and rebuild Europe. God knows what would have happened had it been left alone. Well, actually, we do know: the Soviets would have rebuilt you in their image. Bad blood between European nations would have continued to simmer under the Russian boot.

Oh yeah, sure, and obviously all other allied nations had absolutely no part in that rebuilding process. Thank you so much dear Uncle Sam for saving all our souls from the evil communists ! Etc, blablabla. Is that the kind of BS you like to hear ? McCarthy would've probably loved it.

Quote:
I don't buy this argument. It's inconclusive. Would those social programs survive WWI? Could they have even existed in the pre-WWI Europe? The further back in history you go to propose your changes, the more drastic the assumptions you have to make about what else would have changed, and the more meaningless the conclusion.

Who's talking about pre-WWI ? It was a different world back then. What's important is the status we have now, and the complex socio-economic processes that eventually lead to it. America still hasn't reached this point.

Quote:
Oh, please. Europe behaves exactly the same way. Even now, Germany are backstabbing their EU neighbors and cutting a deal with Russia over a gas pipeline.

At least people don't die over it. If the US "helps" a country (by installing a US-friendly dictator, for example), usually many thousand people die from it.

Quote:
And this is the neutered Germany which still has a complex about its nationality but is a relative economic giant. Let's see what happens when that situation equilibrates. The EU is doing well, and I'm happy for it and hope it continues, but I'm not so optimistic as to write it off as a guaranteed success just yet. In the long term, that is.

I expect it to be extremely stable in the long term future.

Quote:You Americans still have a real psychological problem with Russia, don't I guess it must be an illogical overreaction. China? The oppressive communist China? The same China who sends troops to Sudan to protect its oil interests but refuses to do anything about the Darfur genocide? The same China that's selling weapons to Mugabe? The same China that runs operations in Africa which are decades behind in workers' rights? The same China which oppresses Tibet and will eventually have Taiwan, as well? Ah, yes, and the China which is destined to one day have a military capable of projecting force around the globe, considers itself to be the center of the world, and is deeply suspicious of the West.

LOL, and that from an American ! The fact that your country is guilty of the exact same crimes doesn't really give your point a lot of credibility. Give me a break, and come back with a better commi-demonizing scenario.

Quote:
As for Russia, they've been nothing but trouble for about a century if not more. Arguably, they simply don't understand democracy.

They might not yet be there, I agree. But please don't confuse American style democracy with actual democracy. Because there's a large difference between both.

Quote:
Sure, they understand it. Russians are just like everyone else and want the same thing. They're bright and hard-working people, too. But the Russian political system just doesn't really get democracy. If you want to sign an extended defense treaty with a nation which is likely to have bombed its own civilians and blamed it on the Chechnyans to start a war, then be my guest. The US lied about Iraq but I'll have you remember that EU member nations went along with us.

They fell for the lies. Won't happen again, I guarantee you that.

Quote:
Nevertheless, we haven't yet staged terrorist attacks on our own people (though we've thought about it.)

Wouldn't surprise me for a second if it happened.

Quote:
The US has treated Russia poorly in the post-Cold War era. This is partly why they still hate us so much and act the way they do.

I sometimes have the feeling that Americans hate Russians much more (for ideological reasons mainly) than the other way round. But yeah, the US doesn't treat Russia very well. But then again, the US doesn't treat any other country very well either, except when they expect financial or strategic gains from it.

Quote:
Good luck on any partnership with those two countries. You'll need it!

Oh, we will. We have to. Especially China is the future as an emerging economic giant. The US is the past.

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by maximAL
isn't the point basically that commi stuff like health care or education don't get funded for ideological reasons? it's pretty contrary to the "american way of life", in contrast to going to war, isn't it?

It's partly ideological in that many Americans believe in a self-reliant work ethic and favorably view those who put in the effort needed to support themselves.

I can guarantee that many Americans are not that well off enough to support themselves completely and sufficiently. Living in the South has taught me that lesson.

Quote:You Europeans would be in a better position to argue against US military spending if you had self-sufficient militaries of your own. I realize European nations have capable and advanced military forces but during the Cold War (which has been most of the time since WWII), the US was largely responsible for putting up any real defense of Europe against the Soviets. I wonder whether your [social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

Maybe but that doesn't answer my question of how we have $400 billion (and rapidly rising) to spend on a war but have never had to enough to upgrade and improve our social infrastructure. Hell, New Orleans still doesn't have the proper levee systems.

Quote:A trade-off between military and social service spending is not unique to the US. The Chinese have recently increased their military spending (which, as a percentage of their national budget, is still far behind the US) while their veterans complain about inadequate pension payments. I've also heard that Britain may be significantly reducing the size of their naval fleet soon.

China has not been known for their human-rights record and are still young and learning about being a superpower. There are more ways to exert power and influence than military means.

Quote:As for why the money spent on Iraq couldn't have been better spent elsewhere, I agree in principle, but I'm not sure the money was entirely there to spend in the first place. Isn't the US government heavily in debt?

Yes it is, but that hasn't stopped us from going to war, continously spend on the war, and neglect social issues at home while claiming we have no money and trying to pass more new tax cuts.

Another thought I had. I'm keeping this question focused to US based companies. Now as far as global competition is concerned it seems like the government and the companies are not, obviously, giving us a level playing field. In the US we have labor laws. Ex: age limits for working, overtime, livable wages, number of standard working hours, working environment, etc. When you hear about these same companies going overseas and having sweatshops and paying workers a $1 a month or best case a day. How is that fair? It's one thing if you go overseas because the cost-of-living is cheaper and therefore you can pay them less. But if the American worker and foreign worker are not working with the same standards than how do we compete fairly? Are the rules so flexible or even nonexistent that we can't force companies to hire and pay foreign workers in the same way they do for American workers, with economic and cultural differences taken into account? How does the "Global marketplace" work if exploitation and financial debasement is accepted as standard corporate policy?

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by Yann L

Quote:Original post by trzy
I wonder whether your social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

Shifting useless military budget over to important social programs is a sign of sociopolitical maturity. The US is still too young as a nation to understand this. Someday they will understand that taking care of its own people is for more important for a nation than killing a virtual enemy they essentially created themselves. Even a schoolyard bully becomes an adult one day. The US will hopefully mature over time.

That's a cheap shot and the point about the US being "young" relative to Europe is pretty much invalid in this context. The history of the US prior to its colonization extends to Europe, so our society is in most ways just as old as yours. It just happens that some of us moved to a different location.

Second, do social programs in Europe pre-date the US? Europe didn't learn any lessons regarding useless military budgets until after WWI and WWII. The US hasn't faced the same disasters and hardships as Europe in the aftermath of those wars, but we're certainly not too "young" to understand what went wrong with Europe.

Setting aside the question of whether that's a cheap shot, the US is young relative to Europe. 300 years ago there was no such thing as an American. There were Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards in America but there were no people identifying themselves as Americans in America. After the Revolution there was a break and in the decades following a decided effort to establish American culture and society as distinct from European culture and society. That is a key point in any decent course on American literature.

Iirc, many social programs in Europe do pre-date those in the United States. For example, Social Insurance was implemented in Germany in 1889. And as far as nationalized health care goes they still do.

Quote:Original post by sprite_hound
Or maybe your posts have given me reason to respond to that sentence as a threat. I have nothing against Americans or America, just your behaviour. :)

What about my behavior? If I've been "unhelpful", feel free to rate me down, but I'd like to think that you'd respond with an argument rather than in the passive aggressive manner of certain weenies who conveniently remain anonymous.

Frankly, based on my posting history, you can't actually know much about where I stand on anything. I do find it disappointing when everyone parrots the same old viewpoint. If you want to make completely unsubstantiated claims about why America's social services are lacking, be prepared for retaliation :) That's all I'm saying.

Quote:And from your consistently aggressive attitude I can only assume that your definitions of "nice" and "thoughtful" are that I won't question your ideas and beliefs.

Aggressive attitude? It seems a lot of posters here interpret any deviation from the party line as "aggressive" or "confrontational." If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Geeze, maybe I should have just agreed. "Yeah! America spends all its money on war because that's all we understand! LOL! We are such assholes for nominating Bush king! I'll bet he's a Nazi!!! *tee-hee* But so am I for paying taxes!" Would that have been more to your liking? Then, I could join along with everyone else waiting for someone to venture into the thread and make some argument to explain why Europe has developed extensive social programs in the last 50 years and the US hasn't (which doesn't revolve around the idea that US culture simply hates people) and jump on them: "Don't have a cow! How come Americans are so bad at taking criticism? LOL! Europe has nukes and boats too!" So tempting... but I'll pass.

At least I provided an argument, unlike the original post I responded to. And I don't dwell excessively on phraseology -- I'm not a freakin' diplomat and neither is anyone else here.

Quote:
Your last sentence is yet another unwarranted personal attack, albeit implied.

Mmm hmm. Ok.

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Maybe but that doesn't answer my question of how we have $400 billion (and rapidly rising) to spend on a war but have never had to enough to upgrade and improve our social infrastructure. Hell, New Orleans still doesn't have the proper levee systems.

For that kind of money we could have fixed New Orleans and Mexico too...

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Another thought I had. I'm keeping this question focused to US based companies. Now as far as global competition is concerned it seems like the government and the companies are not, obviously, giving us a level playing field. In the US we have labor laws. Ex: age limits for working, overtime, livable wages, number of standard working hours, working environment, etc. When you hear about these same companies going overseas and having sweatshops and paying workers a $1 a month or best case a day. How is that fair? It's one thing if you go overseas because the cost-of-living is cheaper and therefore you can pay them less. But if the American worker and foreign worker are not working with the same standards than how do we compete fairly? Are the rules so flexible or even nonexistent that we can't force companies to hire and pay foreign workers in the same way they do for American workers, with economic and cultural differences taken into account? How does the "Global marketplace" work if exploitation and financial debasement is accepted as standard corporate policy?

Don't kid yourself, the global marketplace operates on exploitation and financial debasement. Companies leave the US in search of exploitable labor and non-existent environmental regulation all the time. That's why China is so appealing. Labor agitators are arrested and never heard from again. I mean, geez, if Chinese Communists are as truly scared of Falun Gong as they appear to be, they don't dare allow any indepedent labor organizations to form.

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by trzy

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by trzy
Afr0m@n: The war stayed cold because of the US counterbalance, especially in Europe during the decades before ICBMs became widespread.

The war didn't stay cold between superpower proxies...

Nope, unfortunately it didn't. Anyone who thinks that the world has generally been more "peaceful" since WWII (whether due to nuclear weapons or any other excuse, including US dominance or UN power) needs only to look at all the conflict that has happened since in southeast Asia, in Africa, in the middle east, and even Latin America.

It's been a slow burn for the most part.

Maybe compared to WWI and WWII. But how does it compare to other time periods? I don't know but if someone told me they researched it and came to the conclusion that we're living in some of the most violent decades in history, my gut reaction would be to accept it initially.

On the one hand, there are a lot more people alive than ever before, but on the other hand, the raw numbers of people killed in wars during the 20th century (even post-WWII) is pretty staggering.

There was a study done on that a few years ago but I don't have a link to it. Iirc, on a per capita basis, we are actually not living in the most violent decades in history.

Quote:Original post by Yann L
Who's talking about pre-WWI ? It was a different world back then. What's important is the status we have now, and the complex socio-economic processes that eventually lead to it. America still hasn't reached this point.

I sure hope it doesn't take us two more world wars (fought on our soil this time.) I think I'd rather just continue living with the status quo in that case.

Although if it does come to destructive total war, I hope I can count on you guys to help rebuild us. I mean, only for the sake of those "complex socio-economic processes" that are going to eventually lower my medical expenses.

Quote:
At least people don't die over it. If the US "helps" a country (by installing a US-friendly dictator, for example), usually many thousand people die from it.

People aren't dying yet. It's still too early for Europe to start acting like its old self again. But it's funny you mention the US "helping" other countries. You certainly must not be talking about the coupe in Iran that we thank you Europeans for so readily helping us with. Or your noble attempts to hold on to colonies before your asses were forcefully thrown out. And I'm glad to see Europe putting their money where their mouth is about that whole "Never Again" thing (*cough* Rwanda *cough* Serbia *cough-wheeze* Sudan.)

You guys are light-years ahead of us, culturally. Really.

Quote:I expect it to be extremely stable in the long term future.

I hope so!

Quote:LOL, and that from an American ! The fact that your country is guilty of the exact same crimes doesn't really give your point a lot of credibility. Give me a break, and come back with a better commi-demonizing scenario.

Ok, hang on, let me kill at least half as many of my people as China or the USSR did. Then maybe let me invade a Canadian province for good measure and stake a claim on a Mexican state. Afterwards I'll run over some protestors on the Mall with tanks. Once I start imprisoning the Scientologists, I'll come right back here with a better commi-demonizing scenario as per your suggestions.

All kidding aside, luckily I live in a democratic society where I can criticize my own country and other countries at the same time. What a concept!

Quote:They might not yet be there, I agree. But please don't confuse American style democracy with actual democracy. Because there's a large difference between both.

Because Russian democracy is sooo much better for Europe's interests.

Quote:
They fell for the lies. Won't happen again, I guarantee you that.

I don't know. You guys seem to believe us when we say Iran is developing nukes.

Quote:Wouldn't surprise me for a second if it happened.

You're missing the really interesting thing here. Although things have gotten rather worse in the last decade or so, we're still an open enough society to where something as audacious as a plan to terrorize our own citizens to stage a war was eventually made public. Can you say the same for your new buddies Russia and China?

Quote:I sometimes have the feeling that Americans hate Russians much more (for ideological reasons mainly) than the other way round.

I don't think Americans hate Russians. Hell, Americans hold far less of a grudge against the Russians than many other nations. Americans are deeply suspicious of Putin's government, however. Why would we hate the Russians for ideological reasons? By that reasoning, we would have to hate Western Europe more, because its been far more successful at implementing social programs. Russia isn't doing so hot right now so there's nothing for us to "hate."

And it's not as if anyone but extremist conservatives hate anyone because of social programs. That's a silly idea and shows a lack of realistic experience with everyday Americans.

Quote:
But yeah, the US doesn't treat Russia very well. But then again, the US doesn't treat any other country very well either, except when they expect financial or strategic gains from it.

As opposed to all those selfless nations who do it so they can pat themselves on the back. Jesus, when did Europe ascend into lala-land?

I'm not saying the US is right, all I'm saying is that Europe isn't free from sin and you have an extremely hard time swallowing that. You can bash America all you want -- I won't stop you -- but since most everyone here is going to smile and nod in agreement, I'd rather bash Europe in return. I think it brings something to the table that is relatively uncommon here.

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
I can guarantee that many Americans are not that well off enough to support themselves completely and sufficiently. Living in the South has taught me that lesson.

What lesson is that? That conservatives can't manage money? :)

Quote:Maybe but that doesn't answer my question of how we have $400 billion (and rapidly rising) to spend on a war but have never had to enough to upgrade and improve our social infrastructure. Hell, New Orleans still doesn't have the proper levee systems.

Hell if I know where the money comes from. All I know is that it's easier to appropriate money for wars, especially when there's a promise of a return on the investment. Wasn't Iraq supposed to pay for itself? Oops!

Quote:China has not been known for their human-rights record and are still young and learning about being a superpower. There are more ways to exert power and influence than military means.

They're learning about being a quasi-communist superpower. Somehow I'm not too optimistic about how they're going to act. It's funny that the Europeans in this thread automatically assume that the US is the most evil country around and that somehow China is going to end up being a model superpower. I can just see it now...

Hey, it could happen, and of course I hope it does, but I just don't see it as likely right now.

Quote:How is that fair? It's one thing if you go overseas because the cost-of-living is cheaper and therefore you can pay them less. But if the American worker and foreign worker are not working with the same standards than how do we compete fairly? Are the rules so flexible or even nonexistent that we can't force companies to hire and pay foreign workers in the same way they do for American workers, with economic and cultural differences taken into account? How does the "Global marketplace" work if exploitation and financial debasement is accepted as standard corporate policy?

It's not fair. And the idea that more "advanced" nations will naturally shed their basic manufacturing capabilities (and therefore the ability to remain self-sufficient powers) doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I can't put my finger on it. But that's the way the cards seem to be falling...

Trying to compare post-WW2 America with Europe isn't at all fair I think.

During the later stages of WW2, America greatly picked up the pace and developed quite an industrial muscle. It was that muscle that allowed America to rebuild its Navy so quickly after Pearl Harbor, as the Japanese General said it "I believe we have just woken a giant.".

Europe on the other hand had true scars to heal. The Nazi Blitzkrieg disrupted or completely destroyed established industries all across Europe.

Also, a country can't pick itself up in a vacuum. Everything is relative, and so is global economics. The US had the upper hand and the inertia to come out ahead in the post-WW2 scenario, but if it was so, it was because Europe also proved to be an excellent consumer of US' products and prime materials.

Doesn't mean much if your lemonade stand has the best lemonade on the block, or even if you have the *only* lemonade stand on the block, you still rely on consumers to develop an "economy".

So, in closing, if the US where stronger in the post-WW2 era, it was exactly because they protected the ones that where rich enough to buy their products.