That was the message I wrote and that was intented to you in the now-censored thread on this forum.
Cheers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Arun V:
Fine lets not police teh world, and then have all of you complain that the United states...the most powerful country in teh world, does nothing to bring stability to the world around them. You don't want us to be the world police fine, let saddam have kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, Let milosevic run free in eastern europe etc etc...personally...whenver I hear stuff like this..I sense inferiority complexes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is not about the United States being or not the police of the world. There is no country that shall be the police of the world.
Some people from different horizons have being critisizing the United States for acting or not since perhaps the end of World War I. "Where was the USA during the '30s when Europe needed them", "Why the US went in Viet-Nam", etc... The United States of America (read President Bush) officially auto-proclaimed themselves as the police of the world, judges of the world regardless different major opinions, like the European Union one.
The question should not be "Why the USA is doing this" or "Why the USA is not doing this". First of all, the USA is the only left mega-power on this planet. The country who reached first position (first position usually means on a economic theme [read : numbers]) dosen't need to go higher, but wants to keep itself there. Therefore, the USA is not acting as the world's police, but is acting in keeping its position intact.
As I said, no country shall be the world's police because when a country (here, the most significant example : the USA) is interfering/acts it is not as an act of pure generosit, but is a deliberate act of protecting and, important, gaining interests. In a way, the USA being the "world's police" is another way of keeping their position on the top and gaining more and more interests all over the world. It has nothing to do with generosity. The attacks on Afghanistan where surely an act of "primitive" defense, but the continuation of the "war" on terrorism is a war for interests. Nothing to do with the objectivity a police would have (in the perfect world).
The United Nations should be the world's "police", though it needs a major reform to be so. The Security Counsil is anti-democratic, serving the interests of 5 countries, but in the great majority, serving the interests of the USA and China, mainly, with the vetos. France and the UK are not using this veto a lot and Russia is balancing itself. The Security Counsil, controlling most of the UN's actions, is a relic of the end of WWII, wich was at the time good in a messed-up world, but wich is a relic right now.
So as I said, there is no world police right now, its "only" a matter of interests (economic / military / political). Was the USA actiong as a police by supporting the UCK in Kosovo ? The UCK was supported financially by the CIA and by Bin Laden's Al-Qaida. Al Gore was calling the UCK : "The UCK Organization is the reflection of America's generosity and democracy"... UCK was financed by the CIA and by Al-Qaida. And, while I'm in the subject, Al-Qaida and the whole Political Islamist movement was all build-up by the help of the USA (through the CIA) in order to struggle the USSR in the 80s, and in the 90s in order to struggle the ex-USSR Republics of the middle-east regions. Bin Laden, one of the greatest opportunist (here, opportunism isn't a quality) then turned against the USA and we know the rest of the story.
But Bin Laden is a muppet. He was treated in private hospitals, during july 200I, in the USA and could have been arrested. Bin Laden is a pretext, a terrible pretext, even though he is one responsible. The attacks were the pretext of the USA to invade Afghanistan (wich is understandable, but not suitable by the form of the way it was done, to me and to a lot of sociologist/politicans). Bin Laden is also the pretext for the USA to officially proclaim themselves the King of the World and Judge of the World. What the world learned from Sept. II ? That it needs to watch out for the USA and that it needs a reform and more guts to stand up and say "no" when it means so. What the USA learned from Sept. II ? Are you an ordinary citizen or are you a member of the economical elite or a member of the Government, or a member of the CIA ? Depends....
By the way, while were on the intense subject, this is not a bashing to anyone. I remarked that people on this forum like to thing they are getting bashed.
------------------
Le peuple uni, jamais ne sera vaincu
The people united, will never be defeated
El pueblo unido, nunca se derrote
Cheers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Arun V:
Fine lets not police teh world, and then have all of you complain that the United states...the most powerful country in teh world, does nothing to bring stability to the world around them. You don't want us to be the world police fine, let saddam have kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, Let milosevic run free in eastern europe etc etc...personally...whenver I hear stuff like this..I sense inferiority complexes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is not about the United States being or not the police of the world. There is no country that shall be the police of the world.
Some people from different horizons have being critisizing the United States for acting or not since perhaps the end of World War I. "Where was the USA during the '30s when Europe needed them", "Why the US went in Viet-Nam", etc... The United States of America (read President Bush) officially auto-proclaimed themselves as the police of the world, judges of the world regardless different major opinions, like the European Union one.
The question should not be "Why the USA is doing this" or "Why the USA is not doing this". First of all, the USA is the only left mega-power on this planet. The country who reached first position (first position usually means on a economic theme [read : numbers]) dosen't need to go higher, but wants to keep itself there. Therefore, the USA is not acting as the world's police, but is acting in keeping its position intact.
As I said, no country shall be the world's police because when a country (here, the most significant example : the USA) is interfering/acts it is not as an act of pure generosit, but is a deliberate act of protecting and, important, gaining interests. In a way, the USA being the "world's police" is another way of keeping their position on the top and gaining more and more interests all over the world. It has nothing to do with generosity. The attacks on Afghanistan where surely an act of "primitive" defense, but the continuation of the "war" on terrorism is a war for interests. Nothing to do with the objectivity a police would have (in the perfect world).
The United Nations should be the world's "police", though it needs a major reform to be so. The Security Counsil is anti-democratic, serving the interests of 5 countries, but in the great majority, serving the interests of the USA and China, mainly, with the vetos. France and the UK are not using this veto a lot and Russia is balancing itself. The Security Counsil, controlling most of the UN's actions, is a relic of the end of WWII, wich was at the time good in a messed-up world, but wich is a relic right now.
So as I said, there is no world police right now, its "only" a matter of interests (economic / military / political). Was the USA actiong as a police by supporting the UCK in Kosovo ? The UCK was supported financially by the CIA and by Bin Laden's Al-Qaida. Al Gore was calling the UCK : "The UCK Organization is the reflection of America's generosity and democracy"... UCK was financed by the CIA and by Al-Qaida. And, while I'm in the subject, Al-Qaida and the whole Political Islamist movement was all build-up by the help of the USA (through the CIA) in order to struggle the USSR in the 80s, and in the 90s in order to struggle the ex-USSR Republics of the middle-east regions. Bin Laden, one of the greatest opportunist (here, opportunism isn't a quality) then turned against the USA and we know the rest of the story.
But Bin Laden is a muppet. He was treated in private hospitals, during july 200I, in the USA and could have been arrested. Bin Laden is a pretext, a terrible pretext, even though he is one responsible. The attacks were the pretext of the USA to invade Afghanistan (wich is understandable, but not suitable by the form of the way it was done, to me and to a lot of sociologist/politicans). Bin Laden is also the pretext for the USA to officially proclaim themselves the King of the World and Judge of the World. What the world learned from Sept. II ? That it needs to watch out for the USA and that it needs a reform and more guts to stand up and say "no" when it means so. What the USA learned from Sept. II ? Are you an ordinary citizen or are you a member of the economical elite or a member of the Government, or a member of the CIA ? Depends....
By the way, while were on the intense subject, this is not a bashing to anyone. I remarked that people on this forum like to thing they are getting bashed.
------------------
Le peuple uni, jamais ne sera vaincu
The people united, will never be defeated
El pueblo unido, nunca se derrote
