^^^

I remember a British celebrity did a road trip from one side of the USA to the other a number of years ago (no, not Billy Connelly).

At the end of it he concluded that the USA has the absolute best of everything and at the same time, the absolute worst of everything. From what I've observed of the country myself, I think that's a pretty fair statement as someone who has never been there.

networkn:

 

frankv:

 

• Grenada
• Nicaragua
• Panama
• Chile
• El Salvador
• Haiti
• Libya

 

 

Ok and what state would those countries/the world be in now if there hadn't of been military intervention of the US?

 

 

No-one can know for sure.

But do you think Haiti could be in a worse state? And Grenada, with 38% below the poverty line, 33% unemployment, and overwhelming public debt?

America should do what you suggest they want to do... "mind their own business". Mind you, as per the quote below, I guess they do see it as their own own business... their own ([Edit] big not bug) business.

 

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows: * making the world safe for American corporations; * enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress; * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model; * extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power." This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

 

 

 

Syria, I believe. If not Syria, then Iraq. And Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Umm, was NZ in the first group of forces to attend? No, we came in behind in a "peace-keeping role". Would NZ have been there without the USA, hell no. No chance. 

 

Beg pardon... I didn't realise that being first was a criterion. But, in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan it was an active military role, not peace-keeping. And pretty much from the get-go too. Not that I think it's a good idea,; just rebutting your suggestion that NZ didn't get involved.... "When was the last time NZ threw it's hat in the ring to step up?".

 

To be honest, the MAJORITY of people I know who are most critical of the US (and use the oldest and most worn out Cliches) are the ones who have never been. I am guilty of it, from my younger days, my sister I know has a VERY different view of the US since her visit.  I know a LOT of people who feel very differently now. 

 

I'm in that MAJORITY, but planning to remedy that next year. But I really wasn't expecting to see anything which would explain their foreign policy. For example, I don't believe their foreign policy is as an expression of the average American's views. Perhaps you could elucidate as to what I should try and see? What did your sister, and a LOT of people, see and experience that changed their minds?

Frank

(Avoiding cliches like the plague).

MikeB4:

 

The Russians have been coming for decades in fact since the 19th century yet they never have.

 

Except in Finland. And Afghanistan. And the Crimea.

 

Most of the fortifications around NZ coast was for the Russian threat.

 

Successful deterrence!

lol

frankv:

MikeB4:

The Russians have been coming for decades in fact since the 19th century yet they never have. Most of the fortifications around NZ coast was for the Russian threat.

Successful deterrence!

lol

 

Geektastic:

 

Fred99:

 

It also begs for a response, as the official body count I've seen says that:

 

The republican paramilitaries killed 723 civilians
The loyalist paramilitaries killed 878 civilians
The biggest toll of all 1080 was what the (P)IRA took on the British security forces.
The "security" forces managed to kill over 3 times as many republican vs loyalist paramilitaries.

 

On balance and numbers and stuff, that seems like a pretty fair fight to me, shame about the poor buggers who weren't really involved but got killed anyway, but there's millions of them from all over the worlds who don't get to say how annoying it is to be dead for no decent reason.

 

 

 

 

According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people during the Troubles up to 2001.

 

That figure is much the same as what I quoted above, you'd originally suggested that number was "civilians" when over 1,000 were from the security forces.

All people, just that the paramilitaries and "services" sign up to something with the expectation they may kill or be killed.

I removed A LOT of quotes from @Fred99 replies. This is not a quote playground folks. 

 

No-one can know for sure.

 

But do you think Haiti could be in a worse state? And Grenada, with 38% below the poverty line, 33% unemployment, and overwhelming public debt?

 

America should do what you suggest they want to do... "mind their own business". Mind you, as per the quote below, I guess they do see it as their own own business... their own ([Edit] big not bug) business.

 

Well YOU might feel that way, but in my experience I don't think most people feel that way, and I certainly doubt they would, if it actually started to happen (and the consequences of said non-intervention started to bite).

 

 

 

Beg pardon... I didn't realise that being first was a criterion. But, in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan it was an active military role, not peace-keeping. And pretty much from the get-go too. Not that I think it's a good idea,; just rebutting your suggestion that NZ didn't get involved.... "When was the last time NZ threw it's hat in the ring to step up?".

 

Well, I think it does matter who goes first, who initiates the action. My understanding of our force deployment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were peace-keeping non-combat roles (I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary). If the USA is prepared to put it's people in harms way, and we aren't, I feel it's wrong to criticise. We are prepared to "intervene" so long as none of our people are dead at the end. That doesn't speak to a lot of conviction from my perspective. Please understand I am NOT saying we don't provide value, I am simply talking about the hypocrisy.

 

I'm in that MAJORITY, but planning to remedy that next year. But I really wasn't expecting to see anything which would explain their foreign policy. For example, I don't believe their foreign policy is as an expression of the average American's views. Perhaps you could elucidate as to what I should try and see? What did your sister, and a LOT of people, see and experience that changed their minds?

 

I am not suggesting it will explain their foreign policies (I don't claim to have a great understanding of them either, because its exceptionally complex), but the usual things I hear when referring to Americans, are the tired old cliches of LOUD, Stupid, Ignorant, war obsessed, blah blah blah. I think (Obviously depending on where you are and who you interact with) you will find that Americans are not like that IN GENERAL (I find Kiwi's loud, ignorant in general and worse behaved around alcohol). 

I get a strong sense of attitude from you in your above response. I am simply sharing my experiences, if they aren't of value to you, it's fine, I won't mind, but I don't feel it's necessary to respond in such a way.(if I have misread then please accept my sincere apologies).

Americans are people, with real lives, families and things they care about. I would just "get amongst it". I would encourage you to leave prejudices at home if you have those, and be prepared to accept a different view based on a different culture. I'd encourage that in every country people travel to personally.

If you want it to be like NZ, you could save yourself a few thousand and stay home. (general comment not aimed at you specifically).

freitasm:

 

I removed A LOT of quotes from @Fred99 replies. This is not a quote playground folks. 

 

OK - message received. 

<note to self - not everybody reads these forums on an 80" 4k screen>

That must be a pain on the lap or sitting in bed 

networkn:

 

 

No-one can know for sure.

 

But do you think Haiti could be in a worse state? And Grenada, with 38% below the poverty line, 33% unemployment, and overwhelming public debt?

 

America should do what you suggest they want to do... "mind their own business". Mind you, as per the quote below, I guess they do see it as their own own business... their own ([Edit] big not bug) business.

 

 

Well YOU might feel that way, but in my experience I don't think most people feel that way, and I certainly doubt they would, if it actually started to happen (and the consequences of said non-intervention started to bite).

 

Sorry, but I don't put a lot of credibility on what you think (or don't think) how "most people" feel based on your experience.

History is fairly clear that America uses military action to further its own interests rather than to liberate the oppressed, or to prevent oppression of the already free.

 

My understanding of our force deployment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were peace-keeping non-combat roles (I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary).

 

Google 'sas nz deployment syria iraq afghanistan'.

 

If the USA is prepared to put it's people in harms way, and we aren't, I feel it's wrong to criticise. We are prepared to "intervene" so long as none of our people are dead at the end. That doesn't speak to a lot of conviction from my perspective. Please understand I am NOT saying we don't provide value, I am simply talking about the hypocrisy.

 

 

My view of this is that the USA is happy to put its people in harm's way IN ITS OWN INTEREST. And that it puts a relatively low value on its own citizens' lives. NZ has little to gain, so there's not much point in sending our guys off to be cannon-fodder. The hypocrisy is about pretending to do it for the sake of "World Peace".

 

 

I'm in that MAJORITY, but planning to remedy that next year. But I really wasn't expecting to see anything which would explain their foreign policy. For example, I don't believe their foreign policy is as an expression of the average American's views. Perhaps you could elucidate as to what I should try and see? What did your sister, and a LOT of people, see and experience that changed their minds?

 

 

I am not suggesting it will explain their foreign policies (I don't claim to have a great understanding of them either, because its exceptionally complex), but the usual things I hear when referring to Americans, are the tired old cliches of LOUD, Stupid, Ignorant, war obsessed, blah blah blah. I think (Obviously depending on where you are and who you interact with) you will find that Americans are not like that IN GENERAL (I find Kiwi's loud, ignorant in general and worse behaved around alcohol). 

 

Interesting... I made NO comment about American people, and was studiously trying to keep my posts objective and on-topic (inasmuch as American Foreign Policy is on-topic for Sweden). Dare I say it, but I have good friends (and relatives) who are American. I sincerely expect to meet nice people when I go there. I am miffed that you would stereotype *me* as believing, let alone supporting, those cliches.

 

I get a strong sense of attitude from you in your above response. I am simply sharing my experiences, if they aren't of value to you, it's fine, I won't mind, but I don't feel it's necessary to respond in such a way.(if I have misread then please accept my sincere apologies).

 

Hmmm... I get a strong sense that you're trying to push your point of view. I don't see *any* actual experiences being shared, just an uncritical acceptance of USA propaganda that "USA Is Altruistic and Benevolent And We Should All Be Grateful". I'll resist *that* wherever I find it.

 

History is fairly clear that America uses military action to further its own interests rather than to liberate the oppressed, or to prevent oppression of the already free.

 

Is it? I guess it's a matter of perception.

 

Google 'sas nz deployment syria iraq afghanistan'.

 

Heh did YOU google for that? VERY first result: 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/286365/new-zealand's-15-year-role-in-iraq

SECOND line of this: 

New Zealand has deployed military personnel to Iraq twice in the past 15 years, but not in a combat role.

 

My view of this is that the USA is happy to put its people in harm's way IN ITS OWN INTEREST. And that it puts a relatively low value on its own citizens' lives. NZ has little to gain, so there's not much point in sending our guys off to be cannon-fodder. The hypocrisy is about pretending to do it for the sake of "World Peace".

 

Well at worst I think both sides are guilty of hypocrisy, but certainly not one more than the other. We will have to agree to disagree that the USA does this solely for it's own benefit.

Do you go to work solely for your employers benefit? No. Me either.

 

I'm in that MAJORITY, but planning to remedy that next year. But I really wasn't expecting to see anything which would explain their foreign policy. For example, I don't believe their foreign policy is as an expression of the average American's views. Perhaps you could elucidate as to what I should try and see? What did your sister, and a LOT of people, see and experience that changed their minds?

 

Interesting... I made NO comment about American people, and was studiously trying to keep my posts objective and on-topic (inasmuch as American Foreign Policy is on-topic for Sweden). Dare I say it, but I have good friends (and relatives) who are American. I sincerely expect to meet nice people when I go there. I am miffed that you would stereotype *me* as believing, let alone supporting, those cliches.

 

To me that seems like you were discussing Americans (as was I) as I have highlighted above.

 

Hmmm... I get a strong sense that you're trying to push your point of view. I don't see *any* actual experiences being shared, just an uncritical acceptance of USA propaganda that "USA Is Altruistic and Benevolent And We Should All Be Grateful". I'll resist *that* wherever I find it.

 

Are you not doing the same ? Is there something wrong with putting forward a point of view? The difference is in the tone to which that point of view is presented. 

I am not sure how you can suggest I am not basing this on my experiences, I have spent time in the USA, I work with Americans as part of my job, both who live here and who live in the US. I make no claim to a significant understanding of American international relations, but I have experience with the people and can challenge some of the stereotypical nonsense I hear about Americans BASED on my ACTUAL interactions. 

As to the way you have "perceived" my viewpoint, perhaps re-read my posts with a little less of your tinted glasses on, I am simply suggesting a balance to the argument that American only acts in it's best interests and are all evil blah blah blah.

The quoting system system here is EXHAUSTING. It is not possible to integrate another system that is more automated?

Rikkitic:

 

I lived in the USA for many years. I spent my youth there. Of course it is not the epitome of evil. Of course most Americans are good and decent people. But I would never choose to live there again. There is just too much wrong with the place. One of the things that is wrong is the idiotic idea many Americans have that they are somehow morally superior to everyone else and their country is the best place in the world. The nasty nonsense of American Exceptionalism. The appalling ignorance and utter disinterest most people have regarding the rest of the world. The obsession with guns and the violence that goes with that. The overwhelming shallowness and superficiality. And many, many other things. Contrasting this is excellence in the arts and sciences, unique innovative and entrepreneurial abilities, enormous economic and technological resources and so on. Like all countries America is many things, but on balance it is not a place I want to be.

 

 

 

I can't claim to have lived there, but your comments about shallowness, moral superiority and superficiality is certainly NOTHING like I've experienced (in general). I don't find that in a general sense. Of course, there are people like that, but there are people like that everywhere. I'd say Britans are worst right now for it. 

I find the lack of interest in other places in the world is a consequence of the fact they really generally have no need to know much about any other part of the world. The USA is pretty self-sufficient. Unlike NZ where our world-view is a requirement because we NEED the USA to survive. The choice of President of the USA is important to us, but our choice of Prime Minister means nothing to the USA in general or political terms.

I think gun obsession is reducing in numbers in general, but increasing in intensity in those who are "extremists".

5 years ago when I visited, you couldn't have a conversation with an average Joe on the street about gun control, now, I have found a MUCH more moderate view of it. 

I will admit to not having spent any time in South or Central USA, but I know people from that region moderately well as I have worked with them for a number of years. 

I believe that America probably was the greatest country in the world for a while, and I think they could potentially get back to that. I enjoy their patriotism in general. In the USA, at least a few years ago, even someone who hated the President would jump in front of a bullet for him. In NZ, we would hide BEHIND John Key.

Let's put that theory to the test if Trumpy gets in. 

DarthKermit:

 

Let's put that theory to the test if Trumpy gets in. 

 

Yeah well to be fair I did state "a few years ago". Probably the last time was Clinton, or term 1 of Bush. Maybe even term 1 of Obama but not so much.