2/26/13

The United States and two member nations of NATO have been deployed to Turkey providing defensive aid due to the conflict in Syria. Even though the United States already has a military presence in Turkey, this increase in troop activity is dictating a clear movement towards American imperialism within the region. Due to the increase of western military personnel, anti-western [American] protests have been occurring at a greater rate. While it is true the Turkish government asked NATO for aid during this delicate situation, it must also be noted that governments have long stopped answering to its citizens.

Occupying a nation with military personnel is not how the United States became a hegemonic power. All empires that have stretched their militaries thin by occupying nations far beyond their borders fell. Evidence is seen from the Greeks to the British yet political leaders believe they are far more intelligent than those who preceded them. This arrogance will lead to America's downfall while China slowly takes the reins. More importantly, as the United States continues to occupy the Middle East creating more enemies in already unapologetic region.

Regardless of the progress made in alternative energies the fact remains, oil is a critical facet of transportation that economic activity built around. One of two scenarios will occur, 1) oil is sold an extraneously high rate crippling the American economy or 2) OPEC enforces sanctions on oil imported into America, slowing trade down also crippling the economy. Neither scenario bodes well for America; changes must be made without delay. How does America regain the symbol of opportunity, prosperity and freedom it once held?

Difficult, non-mainstream ideological principles must be held that are in line with the constitution. Bringing the troops back from the 135 nations they are currently occupying is the first step. Second, America must begin to foster relationships that build business overseas. Creating economic opportunities for Americans and those abroad allows sustainable progress to be achieved. As citizens of nations living in warzones due to the occupation of western military never see their lives improve, it will only lead to long term resentment towards western ideals. Though by building, teaching and growing business practices around free market principles we cannot only improve these people's lives, but open new trading partners. Furthermore, as they become wealthier they will demand a greater amount of goods through trade; in theory creating American jobs to meet the increased demand.

Military leaders and politicians steer from these ideas because they believe in regime change above everything. Although this is partially true, utilizing hard power tactics is not the correct method. The Cold War was won on a soft power approach employing numerous different strategies to promote the American dream. This method will take longer as shown through the Cold War but it will create lasting results; good ideas do not require force. However, America has changed since the fall of Communism and before we can begin to promote our ideals onto others we must first bring back the America as envisioned by our forefathers within the Constitution, the America that stepped into the hegemonic status as Britain fell after World War I and finally the America that defeated communism.

The complicated task will be educating the people of America that liberty, economic freedom from the government, is how America became a great nation. In essence we must use the same strategy applied towards the Soviet Union on our own people. As the ideology in America begins to realign itself with the political and economic freedom we can then begin to move forward. Anti- American protesters in the Middle East will not exist because businesses will be built on trust, capitalism and wealth. Developing an environment that fosters this doctrine will allow economic growth. It is difficult to protest an ideology, a nation or a different culture when they are putting in the same time, effort and capital to create a livelihood for themselves and their family as you.

Changes like these will not happen overnight, they will take a great deal of time and patience. Those who work towards educating, promoting and developing economic freedom built around a capitalist mentality might not live to see their efforts pay-off. However, you can rest easy knowing the next generation will be free from government oversight, imperialism and economic misfortune. Nothing worth achieving ever came without hard work and even though it appears to be an impossible undertaking, through small steps economic prosperity can be attained.

Comments (18)

2/23/13

I like this post.

2/23/13

Economic growth of any nation and some form of official or non official military occuptaion go hand in hand if there is a current untapped market in a foreign country that the country itself can capitalize on there is no way they want foreigners tapping in on their GDP lets not forget that the stock markets original aim was to fund armies

2/23/13

nah brah if u cut military we will lose jobs and get poor, but wait it gets worse mexico will invades us and take over the country, u rly want that 2 happen brah? obviously u hate america

2/23/13

Ron Paul:
nah brah if u cut military we will lose jobs and get poor, but wait it gets worse mexico will invades us and take over the country, u rly want that 2 happen brah? obviously u hate america

You didnt read my post correctly I said one of the original uses for the stock market was and is to fund armies the reason I metioned that is not whether or not I hate America but that before we can look into using our armies to fund capital expansion we should stregthen or national economy and therefore have the economic backbone we need to fumd the armies needed to not only protect home borders but assist in the economic expansion of america globally.
2/23/13

smallmoneygrower:
Ron Paul:
nah brah if u cut military we will lose jobs and get poor, but wait it gets worse mexico will invades us and take over the country, u rly want that 2 happen brah? obviously u hate america

You didnt read my post correctly I said one of the original uses for the stock market was and is to fund armies the reason I metioned that is not whether or not I hate America but that before we can look into using our armies to fund capital expansion we should stregthen or national economy and therefore have the economic backbone we need to fumd the armies needed to not only protect home borders but assist in the economic expansion of america globally.

i wuz talkin to op brah
2/24/13

Ron Paul:
smallmoneygrower:
Ron Paul:
nah brah if u cut military we will lose jobs and get poor, but wait it gets worse mexico will invades us and take over the country, u rly want that 2 happen brah? obviously u hate america

You didnt read my post correctly I said one of the original uses for the stock market was and is to fund armies the reason I metioned that is not whether or not I hate America but that before we can look into using our armies to fund capital expansion we should stregthen or national economy and therefore have the economic backbone we need to fumd the armies needed to not only protect home borders but assist in the economic expansion of america globally.

i wuz talkin to op brah

I am not sure if this is sarcasm.

However, I am not insisting we use the military for economic expansion but in nations such as Afghanistan that we have considerable amount of capital invested we can begin to allow American businesses the opportunities to invest their own capital (currently they aren't allowed). China is waiting for the U.S to secure the region (which doesn't appear likely) in order to reap the economic benefits. If U.S companies were able reap the benefits of the years the military has spent in the region it would show us in a different light. Military involvement will not end anytime soon, but we can start setting up American businesses which will have a better impact in the region and allow help our economy.


"I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though."
-- J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

2/23/13

I think the whole argument about overstretched military's always lead to the end of an empire is no longer relevant. We live in a totally different time with totally different circumstances. I would also argue that there has never before been a country so dominant, so far above the closest competitor than the United States is today. There literally is not a single country that can challenge militarily, economically and I would even culturally. The only reason we are at war with ourselves politically is because there are no challengers for us in anything. We are naturally so competitive that we constantly have to be involved in some type of battle. The common man in America used to take pride in his work as a way of being part of something great. His contribution, no matter how small served a greater purpose. When he went to work not only was he working to provide for his family, but he had a sense of patriotic pride. By working hard he was helped to prove that the principles that build the United States were superior to the principles of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and soon thereafter Soviet Russia. Fast forward to 1990 and Russia is in disarray, Western culture has flourished throughout the world, Europe is finally built up again, but still relies on US military protection and is in no position to challenge us. World peace seems to be here at last and there is a victory party that occurs through the whole decade and the computer revolution creates wealth not seen since the gilded age. Then 9/11 happens and then the american people end up in political war with ourselves. I think in some ways it was a turning point in the mindset of the common man in the US. Any other time we have been at war it has been against a legitimate power, this time it was a ragtag operation of terrorists that could certainly do harm but poised no real threat on a massive scale economically or militarily. Initially the country was in it's patriotic mode again (Bush actually had a 90% approval rating briefly), and I believe that it was appropriate. I think about every single american wished there was something that personally could have done to help out. No question was the compassion sincere, but I think at some point that compassion is morphed into the high that comes from competing. If it was a large industrialized country that we were at war with, I think the vast majority of the country would have been on the same page. However, the enemy this time was no such thing. In all fairness it could be compared to the Baltimore Raves against a random high school team. Sure, Ravens fans would go to the game but enthusiasm would soon be lost during the onslaught. In our history we have constantly been fighting for good. We've always had some sort of cause to fight for. We've gotten to a point where we have no serious threats. We are so desperate that our media is trying to build up China as the next superpower, which I believe is just silly. I think the world is so far entrenched with western culture that there really is no turning back. Look at billboards and signs in India and China. You see far more English than their native language, large western restaurants, hotels and retail stores. It is so prevalent it's amazing that the consensus view is that power is going to shift to the East. We all know that the world is extremely complex and that for the most part there have always been some type of massive war. Until really the last half century. Exactly the time when the US became the "policemen" of the world. We had an opportunity during this time to take whatever land and resources we wanted but we did not. Unlike any empire before, we opted to help rebuild and liberate the countries we had just been at war with. Sure we opted to expand our military operations, and why shouldn't we have. We represent good in a sea of rogue nations/people. People often talk about how we need to "bring our boys back" and that everyone hates us because we occupiers. Seldom are we told about the actual good that these operations achieve. You quoted the cheesy saying about nations falling when they are overstretched militarily, attempting to outdo you on that, I will paraphrase a quote in the movie Spiderman...."With great power comes great responsibility". Our military presence provides stability in parts of the world that badly need it. Sure some unintended bad events will occur. With such a big responsibility, there are obviously going to be some mishaps. But as a whole, we've done more good for the world in one century than all other empires combined. For once an empire was created not with the goal of conquest, but the goal of freedom for people of all nations (Isn't it funny that many of the same countries that think we are this terrible warmongering nation, have histories of true imperialism with blood on their hands). Anyone can point to one of the mistakes we've made along the way in attempt to demonize us, but there is no denying as a whole we have been a blessing to the world. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just really believe that people have it so wrong and I never hear a voice of reason. It's either the Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Peter Schiff bs or the Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz nonsense. There is no personal investigation of the reasons of the current state of the globe. Instead people just regurgitate what these charlatans say.

2/23/13

subrosa:
I think the whole argument about overstretched military's always lead to the end of an empire is no longer relevant. We live in a totally different time with totally different circumstances. I would also argue that there has never before been a country so dominant, so far above the closest competitor than the United States is today. There literally is not a single country that can challenge militarily, economically and I would even culturally. The only reason we are at war with ourselves politically is because there are no challengers for us in anything. We are naturally so competitive that we constantly have to be involved in some type of battle. The common man in America used to take pride in his work as a way of being part of something great. His contribution, no matter how small served a greater purpose. When he went to work not only was he working to provide for his family, but he had a sense of patriotic pride. By working hard he was helped to prove that the principles that build the United States were superior to the principles of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and soon thereafter Soviet Russia. Fast forward to 1990 and Russia is in disarray, Western culture has flourished throughout the world, Europe is finally built up again, but still relies on US military protection and is in no position to challenge us. World peace seems to be here at last and there is a victory party that occurs through the whole decade and the computer revolution creates wealth not seen since the gilded age. Then 9/11 happens and then the american people end up in political war with ourselves. I think in some ways it was a turning point in the mindset of the common man in the US. Any other time we have been at war it has been against a legitimate power, this time it was a ragtag operation of terrorists that could certainly do harm but poised no real threat on a massive scale economically or militarily. Initially the country was in it's patriotic mode again (Bush actually had a 90% approval rating briefly), and I believe that it was appropriate. I think about every single american wished there was something that personally could have done to help out. No question was the compassion sincere, but I think at some point that compassion is morphed into the high that comes from competing. If it was a large industrialized country that we were at war with, I think the vast majority of the country would have been on the same page. However, the enemy this time was no such thing. In all fairness it could be compared to the Baltimore Raves against a random high school team. Sure, Ravens fans would go to the game but enthusiasm would soon be lost during the onslaught. In our history we have constantly been fighting for good. We've always had some sort of cause to fight for. We've gotten to a point where we have no serious threats. We are so desperate that our media is trying to build up China as the next superpower, which I believe is just silly. I think the world is so far entrenched with western culture that there really is no turning back. Look at billboards and signs in India and China. You see far more English than their native language, large western restaurants, hotels and retail stores. It is so prevalent it's amazing that the consensus view is that power is going to shift to the East. We all know that the world is extremely complex and that for the most part there have always been some type of massive war. Until really the last half century. Exactly the time when the US became the "policemen" of the world. We had an opportunity during this time to take whatever land and resources we wanted but we did not. Unlike any empire before, we opted to help rebuild and liberate the countries we had just been at war with. Sure we opted to expand our military operations, and why shouldn't we have. We represent good in a sea of rogue nations/people. People often talk about how we need to "bring our boys back" and that everyone hates us because we occupiers. Seldom are we told about the actual good that these operations achieve. You quoted the cheesy saying about nations falling when they are overstretched militarily, attempting to outdo you on that, I will paraphrase a quote in the movie Spiderman...."With great power comes great responsibility". Our military presence provides stability in parts of the world that badly need it. Sure some unintended bad events will occur. With such a big responsibility, there are obviously going to be some mishaps. But as a whole, we've done more good for the world in one century than all other empires combined. For once an empire was created not with the goal of conquest, but the goal of freedom for people of all nations (Isn't it funny that many of the same countries that think we are this terrible warmongering nation, have histories of true imperialism with blood on their hands). Anyone can point to one of the mistakes we've made along the way in attempt to demonize us, but there is no denying as a whole we have been a blessing to the world. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just really believe that people have it so wrong and I never hear a voice of reason. It's either the Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Peter Schiff bs or the Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz nonsense. There is no personal investigation of the reasons of the current state of the globe. Instead people just regurgitate what these charlatans say.

use paragraphs plz

2/24/13

subrosa:
I think the whole argument about overstretched military's always lead to the end of an empire is no longer relevant. We live in a totally different time with totally different circumstances. I would also argue that there has never before been a country so dominant, so far above the closest competitor than the United States is today. There literally is not a single country that can challenge militarily, economically and I would even culturally. The only reason we are at war with ourselves politically is because there are no challengers for us in anything. We are naturally so competitive that we constantly have to be involved in some type of battle. The common man in America used to take pride in his work as a way of being part of something great. His contribution, no matter how small served a greater purpose. When he went to work not only was he working to provide for his family, but he had a sense of patriotic pride. By working hard he was helped to prove that the principles that build the United States were superior to the principles of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and soon thereafter Soviet Russia. Fast forward to 1990 and Russia is in disarray, Western culture has flourished throughout the world, Europe is finally built up again, but still relies on US military protection and is in no position to challenge us. World peace seems to be here at last and there is a victory party that occurs through the whole decade and the computer revolution creates wealth not seen since the gilded age. Then 9/11 happens and then the american people end up in political war with ourselves. I think in some ways it was a turning point in the mindset of the common man in the US. Any other time we have been at war it has been against a legitimate power, this time it was a ragtag operation of terrorists that could certainly do harm but poised no real threat on a massive scale economically or militarily. Initially the country was in it's patriotic mode again (Bush actually had a 90% approval rating briefly), and I believe that it was appropriate. I think about every single american wished there was something that personally could have done to help out. No question was the compassion sincere, but I think at some point that compassion is morphed into the high that comes from competing. If it was a large industrialized country that we were at war with, I think the vast majority of the country would have been on the same page. However, the enemy this time was no such thing. In all fairness it could be compared to the Baltimore Raves against a random high school team. Sure, Ravens fans would go to the game but enthusiasm would soon be lost during the onslaught. In our history we have constantly been fighting for good. We've always had some sort of cause to fight for. We've gotten to a point where we have no serious threats. We are so desperate that our media is trying to build up China as the next superpower, which I believe is just silly. I think the world is so far entrenched with western culture that there really is no turning back. Look at billboards and signs in India and China. You see far more English than their native language, large western restaurants, hotels and retail stores. It is so prevalent it's amazing that the consensus view is that power is going to shift to the East. We all know that the world is extremely complex and that for the most part there have always been some type of massive war. Until really the last half century. Exactly the time when the US became the "policemen" of the world. We had an opportunity during this time to take whatever land and resources we wanted but we did not. Unlike any empire before, we opted to help rebuild and liberate the countries we had just been at war with. Sure we opted to expand our military operations, and why shouldn't we have. We represent good in a sea of rogue nations/people. People often talk about how we need to "bring our boys back" and that everyone hates us because we occupiers. Seldom are we told about the actual good that these operations achieve. You quoted the cheesy saying about nations falling when they are overstretched militarily, attempting to outdo you on that, I will paraphrase a quote in the movie Spiderman...."With great power comes great responsibility". Our military presence provides stability in parts of the world that badly need it. Sure some unintended bad events will occur. With such a big responsibility, there are obviously going to be some mishaps. But as a whole, we've done more good for the world in one century than all other empires combined. For once an empire was created not with the goal of conquest, but the goal of freedom for people of all nations (Isn't it funny that many of the same countries that think we are this terrible warmongering nation, have histories of true imperialism with blood on their hands). Anyone can point to one of the mistakes we've made along the way in attempt to demonize us, but there is no denying as a whole we have been a blessing to the world. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I just really believe that people have it so wrong and I never hear a voice of reason. It's either the Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Peter Schiff bs or the Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz nonsense. There is no personal investigation of the reasons of the current state of the globe. Instead people just regurgitate what these charlatans say.

plz remove head from ass.

2/23/13

o my bad

2/24/13

Times have changed, empires are no longer sustainable through force or armies. Take China's presence in Africa and other mineral rich, less developed regions. The Chinese establish a presence in these places by helping to develop infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.). The host countries have neither the expertise nor the finances to develop them on their own, and many welcome the partnership.

There is no enforcement of cultures, doctrines or values, with the motive being purely economics, i.e., securing of mineral and other rights to fuel growth back in China. Imperialism is truly dead, capitalism is what works!

2/24/13

rabbit:
Times have changed, empires are no longer sustainable through force or armies. Take China's presence in Africa and other mineral rich, less developed regions. The Chinese establish a presence in these places by helping to develop infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.). The host countries have neither the expertise nor the finances to develop them on their own, and many welcome the partnership.

There is no enforcement of cultures, doctrines or values, with the motive being purely economics, i.e., securing of mineral and other rights to fuel growth back in China. Imperialism is truly dead, capitalism is what works!

I completely agree, though the United States does not appear to grasp this concept; at least the cronies in Washington have not.


"I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though."
-- J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

2/26/13

jntheriot504:
Bringing the troops back from the 135 nations they are currently occupying is the first step. Second, America must begin to foster relationships that build business overseas.

Third, building a clean energy future by investing in renewable energy.

2/26/13

excelchimp:
jntheriot504:
Bringing the troops back from the 135 nations they are currently occupying is the first step. Second, America must begin to foster relationships that build business overseas.

Third, building a clean energy future by investing in renewable energy.

Exactly. The biggest vulnerability to the United States is our dependency on foreign energy. It results in bad foreign policy, deficit spending, reduced innovation and the "works." And I'm not encouraging domestic drilling as a panacea to our energy woes - we need sustainable solutions which will lead us to the forefront of innovation in the energy sector. Investment in energy clean technologies needs to be one of the top things on the country's list

"Anti- American protesters in the Middle East will not exist because businesses will be built on trust, capitalism and wealth."

And to respond to the quote above - hatred for the United States in the MENA region runs much deeper than businesses being greedy. The hatred for the United States by the people in the MENA region is a complicated issue to say the least and will not be solved by a "one-solve all solution."

2/26/13

excelchimp:
jntheriot504:
Bringing the troops back from the 135 nations they are currently occupying is the first step. Second, America must begin to foster relationships that build business overseas.

Third, building a clean energy future by investing in renewable energy.

Absolutely. Because of labor costs, lax regulations etc., I don't see America being able to stem the tide of outsourcing. To really compete, there needs to be a shift towards fostering tech and research intensive industries like renewable energy, where most other nations can't compete. This would also create jobs that couldn't be outsourced. I don't know how much government subsidies come into play in the US, but where I work (frontier market), the government subsidizes the hell outta everything and its helped keep businesses growing and jobs in the market. Plays hell with the deficit and inflation though.

2/28/13

This post is terrible in many respects.

First off Britain's fall from imperialism is largely a result of economic reasons not military reasons. You are correct in saying their military was "stretched thin" (the Boer War being the tipping point I believe). And this overstretching of the military caused economic problems, which hastened their eventual decline. But while Britain stumbled trying to keep their empire intact, they focused less on their own economy and growing it. Many of the 'elite' in Britain studied 'history' and bullshit like that learning of past empires (such as Greece), while the US (and Germany) outpaced the English economy, through constant economic upheaval and expansion through innovative ideas that made the US economy much more diverse and successful and continue to grow.

Second, in reference to your 'OIL and OPEC'. If you think the US is going to be in trouble due to reliance on oil, coal, natural gas, what do you think is going to happen to China? Any relatively large, demanding economy? China is the single reason that commodity/energy prices have increased so much over the years (I realize they have come back down to earth a bit with slower growth abroad, but regardless). And yeah China may invest a bit more money in 'green energy' but they have crazy amounts of pollution due to factories. My cousin lives in Shanghai and the 'pollution levels' are above healthy living levels daily (and they are still probably understated by the government). You can't pin 'energy problems' on the US, that is a world problem, not a national problem, which I guess is basically my point..... And I have no idea where this heart throbbing proclamation plays into this paragraph regarding oil at all.... ""How does America regain the symbol of opportunity, prosperity and freedom it once held?"" - What?

Third, America does not need to go back to its "ways during the Cold War". The US current political/military involvement is a direct result of the Cold War....
""America has changed since the fall of Communism and before we can begin to promote our ideals onto others we must first bring back the America as envisioned by our forefathers within the Constitution, the America that stepped into the hegemonic status as Britain fell after World War I and finally the America that defeated communism""
^^^^ This comment is absolutely absurd. America's single goal during the reign of communism was guess what? To stop the spread of communism! And guess how you do that (and what America actually did)?? By trying to spread the ideals of 'democracy and capitalism'. Simultaneously the USSR was trying to sell 'communism' to the world. These were the 2 options to run a country, since these countries (the US and the Soviets) were the worlds 2-superpowers. Going back to the "ways during the Cold War" as you would say would be to shove democracy/capitalism down the worlds throat even more then we do now. The only reason the rest of the world liked us more during the Cold War days was because we were seen as the 'alternative' to Communist Soviets. (Not a bad choice).

What we need to do now (since the end of the Cold War), is too probably throttle off the gas a bit and not push democracy/capitalism as much. I think the US did help during this era a lot and is the reason the world today is largely seen to be 'westernizing' or 'modernizing' whatever you'd like to call it. But since the Cold War there is not a need to continue this role of 'world protector' since you are right (for once), it does piss off the world. As countries are growing, nationalism rising abroad, and countries are proud to show their new confidence and growth (which they should be) and compete on the global stage, nobody wants to be the little brother to America (or any country). The US can still help with this continued shaping of the world as they have largely done in the past, but they can accomplish this in a less aggressive way. If America continues to try and hold as much power as they have in the past, this could potentially cause problems.

But then again America is born on the idea of spreading ideals - aka Protestants/Christianity, etc... China is obviously much more passive and are not concerned with spreading their ideals abroad. That isn't necessarily an evil though. America concerns itself with everyone else's problems because many other countries do not want to. The UN and America's goal is to spread 'human equality'. Maybe they do it to 'forcefully' and could throttle back of course.

And let's be honest, growth in the Middle East is not going to be huge anytime soon. We should continue to focus on building relations with South America, Africa, India, China, etc...

Why so down on 'merica bro?

Sorry for the rant. Just hate when people talk shit about America when they don't know what they are talking about. I am definitely pro-America as you can tell, but I realize there are many things the US can do better.

2/28/13

Drose:
This post is terrible in many respects.

First off Britain's fall from imperialism is largely a result of economic reasons not military reasons. You are correct in saying their military was "stretched thin" (the Boer War being the tipping point I believe). And this overstretching of the military caused economic problems, which hastened their eventual decline. But while Britain stumbled trying to keep their empire intact, they focused less on their own economy and growing it. Many of the 'elite' in Britain studied 'history' and bullshit like that learning of past empires (such as Greece), while the US (and Germany) outpaced the English economy, through constant economic upheaval and expansion through innovative ideas that made the US economy much more diverse and successful and continue to grow.

Second, in reference to your 'OIL and OPEC'. If you think the US is going to be in trouble due to reliance on oil, coal, natural gas, what do you think is going to happen to China? Any relatively large, demanding economy? China is the single reason that commodity/energy prices have increased so much over the years (I realize they have come back down to earth a bit with slower growth abroad, but regardless). And yeah China may invest a bit more money in 'green energy' but they have crazy amounts of pollution due to factories. My cousin lives in Shanghai and the 'pollution levels' are above healthy living levels daily (and they are still probably understated by the government). You can't pin 'energy problems' on the US, that is a world problem, not a national problem, which I guess is basically my point..... And I have no idea where this heart throbbing proclamation plays into this paragraph regarding oil at all.... ""How does America regain the symbol of opportunity, prosperity and freedom it once held?"" - What?

Third, America does not need to go back to its "ways during the Cold War". The US current political/military involvement is a direct result of the Cold War....
""America has changed since the fall of Communism and before we can begin to promote our ideals onto others we must first bring back the America as envisioned by our forefathers within the Constitution, the America that stepped into the hegemonic status as Britain fell after World War I and finally the America that defeated communism""
^^^^ This comment is absolutely absurd. America's single goal during the reign of communism was guess what? To stop the spread of communism! And guess how you do that (and what America actually did)?? By trying to spread the ideals of 'democracy and capitalism'. Simultaneously the USSR was trying to sell 'communism' to the world. These were the 2 options to run a country, since these countries (the US and the Soviets) were the worlds 2-superpowers. Going back to the "ways during the Cold War" as you would say would be to shove democracy/capitalism down the worlds throat even more then we do now. The only reason the rest of the world liked us more during the Cold War days was because we were seen as the 'alternative' to Communist Soviets. (Not a bad choice).

What we need to do now (since the end of the Cold War), is too probably throttle off the gas a bit and not push democracy/capitalism as much. I think the US did help during this era a lot and is the reason the world today is largely seen to be 'westernizing' or 'modernizing' whatever you'd like to call it. But since the Cold War there is not a need to continue this role of 'world protector' since you are right (for once), it does piss off the world. As countries are growing, nationalism rising abroad, and countries are proud to show their new confidence and growth (which they should be) and compete on the global stage, nobody wants to be the little brother to America (or any country). The US can still help with this continued shaping of the world as they have largely done in the past, but they can accomplish this in a less aggressive way. If America continues to try and hold as much power as they have in the past, this could potentially cause problems.

But then again America is born on the idea of spreading ideals - aka Protestants/Christianity, etc... China is obviously much more passive and are not concerned with spreading their ideals abroad. That isn't necessarily an evil though. America concerns itself with everyone else's problems because many other countries do not want to. The UN and America's goal is to spread 'human equality'. Maybe they do it to 'forcefully' and could throttle back of course.

And let's be honest, growth in the Middle East is not going to be huge anytime soon. We should continue to focus on building relations with South America, Africa, India, China, etc...

Why so down on 'merica bro?

Sorry for the rant. Just hate when people talk shit about America when they don't know what they are talking about. I am definitely pro-America as you can tell, but I realize there are many things the US can do better.

The first voice of reason I've seen in this post!

3/1/13


"I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though."
-- J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling