America, Bully or Policeman?

Éomer of Rohan

NO it isn't. Your point was America saved Greece - America wanted allies against something their paranoia wouldn't let them understand and they saw greece as a future base - nothing more - hence their intervention. If you want corroborative evidence check out www.amnesty.org and the UN website - i can't actually remember the address - or the University of Maryland for a list of resolutions passed by the UN general assemby having been submitted by the Human Rights Committee (which ironically enough the US has been kicked off).

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Your point was America saved Greece

Pardon me?

Sand

Pardon me?

You heard him Victor - cat got your tongue?:D

No offence Sand but you obviously have utterly no comprehension of what communism really is or you wouldn't use the word in such an all encompassing fashion. The revolutionaries in Greece were Stalinists - MAJOR difference - the same stands for NK and so on.

As far as I can see the only difference between a Commuist and a Stalinist is that one dreams about setting the world to rights if only they had power, and the other has that power.

TomF

I think the impending change of regime in Iraq may come off without too much gunslinging if Saddam Hussein, Inc. pack up their gems, negotiable securities and gold bars and hit the road for another democratic republic like Libya for retirement. All this under the supervision of the world-bully, the United States of America, of course.

When the bully is finished ushering the former government out, other minions of the United States will be busy reorganizing the government of Iraq so that ordinary people get food and medical care rather than 24-hour broadcasts from Big Brother denouncing the Great Satan.

I am guessing that, under the governance of the United States of America, Iraq will progress to be self-governing and eventually be a shining example of what can be done when directed by people who can actually make a small business support a family, or raise crops.

It will be a wonderful change from the "planned in all details from the top/for the benefit of those at the top" model that has so disastrously operated in Iraq and surrounding countries for much too long, and if Iraq gets "the American treatment" it will be hard for Iran, Syria, and the others to keep their people from begging the Bully of the World to invade them, too.

I sometimes wonder if all this is happening according to an Iraqi script, like that written by Leonard Wibberley in "The Mouse that Roared", where a small country that is only limping-along decides the best course for improvement is to declare war on the United States and then surrender and accept their own Marshall Plan.

SloanerF1

I feel that America fits into both categories. They do have a special role to play in the international community, and their democracy is one that (usually) is to be admired. They also have a phenomenal amount of resources, be they financial, military or cultural.

What is crucial is that they must use these attributes not necessarily as the policemen of the world, with all the connotations such a label contains, but in order to work for the good of all humanity, not simply American humanity or even Western(ised) humanity. Unfortunately, there are simply too many examples where they have failed to perform this role, and George W. Bush and his Administration are about to add another.

shotamoose

Does bribery count as bullying? Cos the US is certainly doing its best to buy Turkey's support in the war, offering up to $26bn in aid and loan guarantees and I suppose a free run at the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Of course, it takes two to tango, and Turkey obviously feel (or felt at some stage) there's a price they will fold at. Maybe they even went chasing the aid. But there's no guarantee that the US will actually honour any promises it makes - they have pretty much given up on funding 'nation-building' in Afghanistan.

The issue now is that the US is trying to buy enough votes on the Security Council so that it will have a so-called 'moral majority' if France and/or China and Russia choose to exercise their veto on a war resolution.

Colin Powell says that ''We present our case. We don't threaten. We don't suggest that blackmail is in order. And hopefully, the power of our argument will persuade them to vote with us.''

But the US hasn't shirked from withdrawing aid for political reasons in the past. When Yemen voted against a resolution to attack Kuwait in 1990, an American diplomat told their UN delegate "that was the most expensive vote you ever cast". Overnight, the US cut aid to Yemen overnight to US$3 million from $42 million and encouraged Saudi Arabia to expell one million migrant and resident Yemenis and confiscate their properties.

This had serious humanitarian consequences for hundreds of thousands of people, but hey they're not US voters so who gives a damn.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.