NO...at 'best' it's pre-emptive strike.

And just to get you to sit in a corner and THINK.... Pearl Harbour was a 'pre-emptive strike'.

It's all very noble and patriotic to have BLIND FAITH in your country and its motives/foreign policy but it is also incredibly naive.

Oh, how 'american' of you!        Guess my attempt at 'liberating' your grammar got denied..........apparantly I don't have the US muscle backing me up....hehe

No different than in the times the US "gets its way".  The world does have some other (non-american) intelligent people you know.  Why do you presume to believe that everyone must love things your way or the world would be shit?  Is the 'american dream' and what you call 'freedom' really nothing more than license to exploit?  That is how it comes across if you reread some of your own statements below on how your corporations are exploiting even your people.  Hmmmm....double-standard maybe?

That statement needs elaboration?      Remember to keep that statement in the context of the original post of mine to which you were responding.

The same place where it's obvious if the bully on the block engages in conflict for the purposes of gain; who in their right mind would (or even be able to) oppose them?  Hence no 'regulation' will ever prevent same.  'Policing' oneself is certainly not the strong suit of the US.  In the american mind everyone else is always to blame/wrong.

Since there is overwhelming evidence (in many forms of respected media) with regard to the US, their 'puppet governments' and the success/failure rate of same I'll let you educate yourself on that subject.

Once again, please refer to my previous posts if you need clarification.  Some countries do not have the societal structure in place (and may never) to be able to function as you see fit.  Travel is a great educator in that regard.  Hopefully you can travel to some of these places (not as a tourist to the hotels etc.) but take in the 'local' atmosphere.  As a canadian, help must first be asked for, then offered and the helping party must try to remain impartial in order to really help.  That is not always an easy task but one our Canadian government (and that of many other nations) embodies.  Dealing with foreign powers from a 'peacekeeping' frame of mind should always be the preferred approach over the 'policing' frame of mind your government seems to embrace.

Unless your country is already being attacked, that would as Jafo posted, be a 'pre emptive' strike which is offensive by nature.  Statements such as "the best defense is a good offense" (I know you didn't say that I'm just using it as an example to make the point) do not make actions taken under it defensive by nature.

The ends (more often than not) do not justify the means.  At least not if we are to remain 'human' in our interactions with each other.  Thank god more people around the world don't hold your viewpoint or this world really would be in terrible shape.

That statement is so false I don't even know where to begin.  Do you really believe the reputation the US has garnered around the world as a 'bully' (at best) is undeserved?

How telling.  I did not in any of my postings use the term 'hate'.  Leave it to an american to use it. hehe

I stated and I quote:  "Really no wonder the rest of the world feels the way it does with regard to the US with that kind of viewpoint."  

Which was in DIRECT response to your statement: "America always seeks a bigger stick, so as to be better equipped to negotiate and demand of other countries. By always being more powerful, we dont have to worry about defending ourselves because nations are too scared to defy us in the first place."

When someone chooses to invent statistics in order to support a viewpoint it is not up to the responding party to prove them wrong.

  ..........Seriously?!?  Assigning some benign sounding term to an action changes the action now? 

Anyway, I do believe (whether intentionally or not) you and I seem to just be going around in circles at this point.  Everything I meant in response to your post on page 2 I said in my initial reply.  I chose to elaborate on a few points in subsequent posts in the hopes my position would become more clear.  It appears to not have worked so at this point I'm willing to say.  I'll agree to disagree and let this thread go back to the topic it was meant to discuss.

For my part in dragging this topic off-topic I apologise.

the Monk

And I say the same to you.

Yes, but it was still defensive. Not necessarily justified, but defensive nonetheless. America was supplying Japan's enemies with materials, and so by definition America was then Japan's enemy. Right now you must be thinking "well according to that mentality, EVERYTHING is in defense... what then is offense?". Well offense to me is simply attacking with little or no provocation.

Anyways, Im sure your going to be looking into the exact definition's of defense and offense in order to bring evidence against me. The issue however isnt that, but rather if the US being in the Middle East is justified.

First of all, youve called me blind and naive. Remember the warning you gave me earlier for calling someone ignorant? Think about that for a minute.

Second of all, Im not some fucking moron. Our government is far from perfect, and we have both freakishly fascist leaders and corrupt business-puppet leaders at work as we speak. However, that is NOT the issue.

Furthermore, explain exactly how I am naive and blind?

Monk, its not even worth replying to your post. Its like you said, its a vicious cycle. Personally I think your unwillingness to hear anything ive said has done more to cause the cycle than me.

As I said to Jafo, our country is not perfect, and not everything it does is justified. The issue is however, is if the US being in the Middle East in defense of Israel and in stamping out terrorists is justified (even IF they are somewhat-ulterior motives). To my knowledge, we have done much to stabilize the region, and the only people in the middle east that hate us are the crazies, the terrorists that are also crazy, and people who have simply been brainwashed to hate america, and the people who simply dont think to realize they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Government leaders are always more or less evil, so I wont argue that, but what keeps them from abusing their power is the act of twisting their arms behind them called Democracy.

Not recently... Libya, Egypt and uprisings all around (Syria, etc.) isn't 'stabilizing' by any definition.

I won't discuss whether 'merited' or not. Personally, I feel they go from one evil to another but that will become the problem of everyone in the region and by extension (because of our oil addiction) ours.

Well... I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully that doesnt happen.

 ...sometimes meditcations can help when one suffers from delusions.

All sovereign Nations resent outside 'intrusion'.  It's nothing specific to 'crazies'...it is THEIR RIGHT.

Pure atruism would see 'wealthy' countries assisting the poor, not just those whose 'stability' [or lack of] affescts their bottom-line.

Jafo, I think you're wasting your time.  Someone who makes claims which he couldn't substantiate and when called on them simply bows out by saying "not worth the effort" is being intentionally obtuse to say the least.

Back to your point, aren't you aussies rich?  I mean I haven't had a holiday in a while.......want to sponsor me?  You know being 'altruistic' and all.......hehe 

No...not 'rich', however our economy is in slightly better shap than the US....our dollar is now around 1.08 USD ....when I can remember it being around 0.54.

If you head 'down-under' you can always look me up.  I'm in Melbourne, Oz ....about 3km from the centre of the city. [just near where the 'Melbourne Cup' is run...

I know it's a 'waste of time'....but I'm monitoring the more 'energetic' threads so....while I'm here....

When debating on 'the net' it's often mostly 'pointless' where one doesn't HAVE TO study 'modern history' because one has LIVED through it.

I remember the cold war....quite well.  When your 'old man' is taking fall-out readings for the Govt.... [near our house] during surface tests at Maralinga in the 50's .... you're sort of 'aware' of reality.

I lived through the 60's [so naturally I don't remember them].....

....some say I remember the Ice Age too....but they're just bastards....

So, a government (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) has the right to abuse it's people, and we're wrong for having taken over a country, and basically handing it right back over to it's own people?

You just said that America shouldnt police the world, yet your complaining that it should police everybody then because that's only fair, yet the very reason we dont invade other countries just for the sake of helping is because America would be accused of Imperialism by the likes of people like you. Also, our country is only so powerful, so we obviously cant invade the whole world.

First of all, the very reason I "bowed out" the first time was because your opinion of America is EXTREMELY biased. But since you wanted a "proper" reply so badly, here it is. Enjoy.

No; actually it's people such as yourself, who claim America is evil and imperialist, dont support it's efforts. A war that doesnt have the support of the people and/or the said country's allies behind it is doomed to fail.

Please. Do explain how Soviet Russia getting its way is the same thing as America getting it's way.

Wait, what? People dont like democracy?

I fail to see the logic here. I assume it's more bias.

In terms of politics, those are going downhill quite fast (as in the fascist left versus the fascist "right" who "claim" to be conservative) while the trade deficit, excessive government welfare spending, the huge debt incurred from the failed "bailout" and numerous other problems continue to drag it down. In terms of crime and stability, it's quite well actually.

Here we have a stereotype of the "American people". Im beginning to think less and less of you with every comment I respond to. Furthermore, what do you even mean?

 

Not necessarily false but not necesarily true. By introducing democracy and public schools and such, we are helping recreate and evolve said social structure.

Sometimes they dont, sometimes they do. A few thousand casualties is better than a few hundred thousand casualties. Anyways, I don't think we would invade your country.

Please, enlighten me. Which country did we invade that ended up in worse condition then it was before as a result?

Iraq.

I often regret there is no Prime Directive on this planet.

"Better" implies a standard and a bias as well as a 'right', 'obligation' or 'privilege' for one party to change what it deems 'not as good as' that 'standard'.

I disagree.