I liked your thoughtful post Hugo! I think soft-power is just fine at helping others to better understand us. However... what happens when that soft-power also alienates those who come into contact with what we represent, or those who are supposed to represent us in the civilian sector? I'm thinking primarily of the writing's of Sayyid Qtub, who to be brutally  honest... hated the US with a particular passion after a visit here!  Or... if our desire too help is misconstrued as condescending or interferring? Just some thoughts... There are other reasons also, as to why all the transcripts i read on memri, continuously has many intellectual, religous and governmental figures throughout the middle east referring too us as the Great Satan; And not necessarily because of our hard power either?

 

Although to be honest and fair... it's certainly not as bad or as lopsided as it once was, from a year or two ago! There are instances of some Muslim females criticizing the state of affairs for their gender in the region. Or the occasional intellectual asking for the people in the region too look into themseleves, instead of always blaming others for their misfortunes. And a rare politican or even a businessman, who really throw themseleves out there into the arena of the media, by actually going out on a limb by saying that he likes the US or some other Western nation! So, after thinking about it, i do think you have a very good point. But, whatever commitment we decide too follow with the next President, we need to stay heavily engaged through constant contact in the region and the other surrounding regions for atleas tanother decade, which i think is a neccessity of the upmost importance! And i am not neccessarily referring to always being militarily engaged either!

 

Until then, i'm pretty convinced that terrorist will still be created, because no matter what we do at present, i'm afraid too say.... is simply because we exist? Because we are here/there and we are in the way? But... one thing is clear! Things are changing, and whether we like it or not, i'm afraid! Whether it's for the positive or the negative, only time can tell!

 

Take care,

Panther

Excuse me Hugo, but aren't the US citizens those who elected their goverment? It's not like it was parachuted in DC from Mars. The few US citizens I met in person were not bad people but so are the Serbs, Iranians, Irakians, and many other.

The point is that US people cannot be untied from their goverment. Think of the Germans of the Third Reich. Nowadays Germans even are paranoid on some level (IMO) regarding their behaviour. But I guess that better safe than sorry is a good principle.

So the problem with the US citizens is not that they are evil is that they must involve themselves in the political process more thouroughly. That means responsibility shared. That means giving up part of the individualism that, like it or not, is a distinct characteristic of the US society.

 

It's not my intention to always focus on, why anyone hates the US, or any other Western countries for that matter; Though it does seem like quite a few of my post seem to suggest that. However, the focus in the media has generally been more lopsided toward negativity than objectivty. The atmosphere has been in place and is just right for continued irrational controversy towards American conservatism and will be for some time now. Again, though it's an unpopular stance on this board, the Bush administration isn't the main reason the US is disliked abroad, though it is one of the reasons. I might be wrong about this, but people have this wrong idea about any US conservatism, being in the same league with nazism. That is something i had encountered in the media in the 80's. It relatively died down to a point in the 90's and then picked up again after the 2000 elections. I don't think that is just coincidental! i.e. to make my point more personal, people with belief's like mine, are not popular inside or outside of the US, particularly in the so called blue states. Anyways, has there ever been a disscussion about this on this forum? I really would like to know!

 

If we offer the best in the American character to the world, most will respond favorably.

 

I'm trying my darndest!

 

I don't fully understand your second question. Why are we a world power? Geography: the United States being so far away from the military theaters in WWII made it possible for us to keep our infrastructure intact.

 

 

I know we are now and have been for atleast the past seventy years. But why and when did we start following that path, especially after the warning from our first President to be careful about getting entangled with other foreign powers and alliances? There is disscussion along those lines, in the general history board. Your comment just happened too kind of remind me of it!

 

I hope this helps clarify my previous posts?

 

Panther

Brian, my avatar is a cartoon of my current Prime Minister, dressed as a Chinese Emperor, with our former prime ministers head on a bamboo spike. I have not been, and never will be, kind to any government which doesn't deserve it, whether it is mine, yours, or anyone elses. If I, or most people on this forum, are more anti-american than anti-someone else, it is probably because the american government has done something to deserve it.

 

By that same standard as you applied too the conservative leadership, then the very same can be applied to the liberal leadership as well! For an example, look at what happened to Mr. Leiberman a couple of years ago. A staunch social liberal if i ever saw one, was left out to dry by his own party because of a few differing views, yes the Iraq war being one of them! If that isn't a good enough case of strict voting disciplanary action by just another political party, then nothing is or ever will be good enough to promote any type of standards, simply because we let it, or that is exactly what we want, too hate one another over trivial political beliefs?

 

The size of the country will make an event such as the Great Depression even worse than it was. USA is not just US citizens. For too many times I've witnessed any critic regarding US qualified as "another US bashing". No matter how good is the average american it won't matter if he isn't able to realize that isolation isn't insulation. My opinion is that the worst about your contry is individualism.

JFK did said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". AFAIK americans are very patriotic. But that usually translates by praising the USA and be ready to fight for her any moment. That's not enough.

 

*Kurt Vonnegut said that thing about Htler and Bush.

 

Well, let's by honest my friend, there is alot of spitefullness in American politics today. I pointed out Mr. Lieberman as an example of such a case that reflects both sides of the political divide. Also, we need to be honest about this as well, Mr. Lamont wasn't the paragon of sweetness and light in that race! I know quite a few liberals who were disappointed in this case, who see the hypocrisy of the Democrat party wasn't any different from what is usally applied against the Republican party.

 

But there is a lot of flexibility in the Democratic Party to this day in Congress.

 

Both parties have flexibilites, it's just seems that it is us who are more stubborn at the moment? Anyway, thanks for the link.

Furthermore, Congressman Murtha, a pretty conservative member, is widely respected. And Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is also liked a lot, and he pretty conservative when it comes to military issues and gun ownership.

 

I don't hold Mr. Murtha's current record in very high regard, though i do hold his past in high esteem as well as his own right to an opinion. As far as being respected, maybe in his district, but beyond it, he is seen as one of the most porked-up current members of congress with a high penchant for double standard's that most people would only ascribe too the most  hypocritical amongst us, and also who was ready and willing to dump and forget about the American way of "innocent before being found guilty" of a squad of marines in the Haditha case! There are respectable members within the Democratic party, but Mr. Murtha i wouldn't consider an excample worth holding up as the high virtue of the party that many wish too impress upon others in this country!

 

And many Democrats often vote against the party line when they feel like it, either in the direction of the right or the left.

 

In a way, you are right to a point, except both parties have enough lee-way to do just that. However, when it comes too the more controversial party platforms, as usal in US politics, both would be or is expected by many within their party of voting along party lines!

 

Anyways, i had a thought that might help too explain how i veiw radical terrorists of any stripe. The easy way too explain it would be too look upon them much like we look upon the past actions of the KKK, except with the appearnce of the media falling upon themseleves too help them get their message out! Though, i'm now taking the position that the media are more unwitting accomplices, instead of the actual instigators of what has incredibly helped too drive the more barbaric actions of the current radical Islamic terrorism, to such an powerful extent all across the world!

 

Now, it didn't take the US a few years to stamp out our problems with the KKK, they had too continuously confront it too limit the violence and hatred it was trying too spread for roughly a hundred years within our border's; That is....  until our society was ready and willing too destroy it, by finally seeing it for what it really was, instead of the romantic ideas of peace and purity they supposively believed. Both forms of extreme radical terrorism isn't that far separated from each other, in fact... the only difference between the two is in name only, everything is else they do is petty much the same! That is just another reason why i have a difficult time understanding why people choose too ignore it's existence; Especially those who hold liberal belief's, which run absolutely counter to any extremist ideas that exist in the world today!

 

I still like too believe well meaning people across the globe, have the courage too stand up against such a monstrosity of what is currently confronting it today. Instead of cowering against those who are always ready too destroy those who disagree with them, while easily standing up against the governments who actually let themseleves be condemned, exposed and ridiculed on a daily basis!

 

If nobody can see this as just another difference between these two types, then i'm afraid somebody is bound too be rudly pretty darn so again. I don't mean for that too sound like a scare tactic, it's just the experience i've learned studying this particular problem. If the recent past is any guide for us, then the terrorist are somewhere in the middle or beyond that, of carrying out another plan of more spectacular attack's somewhere across the world. The US can only do so much, and the fact that many of us who advocate cracking down on terrorism and state sponsors across the world, can never stress the need enough for international cooperation for the long term. President Bush has been sadly unable too get that point across! Hopefully, who ever comes next will have an easier time of making a go at it then he did?

 

Best regards,

 

Panther

 

The US creating the taliban... that's a new one? But, i most respectfully disagree! If you meant Al Qadea, then i have heard that one everytime i've gotten on the internet for seven years now! In fact, if i got a penny for every time i've heard that comment, i would be an extremely rich man!

 

Still, i would greatly appreciate it from anyone, some proof to back that up!

 

 

What you say is true and I accept that there is no such thing as 100% collectivism or capitalism. But when you consider the extremes, at one end you find the communist USSR model, and at the other the laissez-faire US model. China can never be considered capitalist unless the military junta behaves in the same way as the cabal in the US, but the fact that the party system is yet intact means that it is not possible.Therefore the state appoints the chief executives of companies and patronizes industry. In the US the opposite is true. However China's break from it's economic isolation in terms of opening it's markets and in fostering international trade will certainly exhibit very minor streaks of capitalist cronyism.

 

A key feature of the Capitalist model is the disconnect between private wealth and public wealth, therefore it's hallmark is wealth disparity and unequal opportunities. The sole purpose of capitalism is to generate profit, hence wealth, and not satisfy 'needs'. ''Needs Creation' is the job of the marketing departments. The Chinese to a larger and Russians to a lesser extent are not 'as' Capitalist as the US. Since big business, banks, and military/industrial complex do not affect state politics and hence society to the same extent. Although with the capitalist intervention in Russia in the form of 'Yeltsin the Drunkard', Russia was definitely placed on the path to ad hoc capitalism. Which is what fueled the Russian Billionaires/oligarchy. Had it not been for the timely God sent Putin, prime Russian state assets would have been sold into foreign ownership of the multinationals that were in collusion with the oligarchs.

 

The goal of productivity is to increase profits and this dictates an ever increase in growth, to shore up national income and hence technically personal wealth(through the trickle down effect!). Hence capitalist need to grow their markets and secure resources, not to sustain but to profit . After internal saturation, other options are colonization, imperialism, and globalism. Globalism is not an unmanaged ethereal state of affairs, without rudder, or helm. We are still living under the shadows of the Bretton-Wood and it's revamped successor the WTO. Therefore markets are directed by greed, rather than need. Which ultimately leads to exploitation of every conceivable type and magnitude.

 

If you remember the iron curtain fell very nicely along the general fault line of western, and eastern Slavic orthodox Europe, as later accepted by Samuel Huntington. He held the view that NATO membership should be closed to 'countries that have historically been primarily Muslim or orthodox', and thus non-western 'in their religion and culture'. It is therefore possible to see the cold war in Europe as a gentleman's agreement between the Allies and Soviets to mark out their areas of influence, and spare Europe the rush for resources or direct competition. The real cold war(or hot war) was to be fought for the resources and domination of the 'third' world. That is why there was no 'active discouragement' of the Soviet advance in 1956 Hungary or later in the Chzeck republic. In fact the 'NATO's new Secretary-General Paul-Henri Spaak glumly called the Hungarian revolt "the collective suicide of a whole people.". and 'The immediate problem was Hungary, where, since neither the Russians nor the Hungarians can subdue the other, a dangerous and wasting anarchy prevails. Searching for a way to help the Hungarians, the U.S. and the West were trying to assure the Russians that the U.S. will not move its military frontiers that much closer to Moscow if the Russians agree to move their troops out.'

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808812,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808812,00.html

 

So where in the Soviet model the beneficiaries of that model would be by inclusively, in the capitalist model it would be by exclusivity. So the level of capitalist dominance in Govt would be reflected by the degree of wealth disparity internally, as well as exported disparity across the globe. I think it is summed up in the words of the US cold war planner, George Kennan(1948): "we have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of it's population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization"

 

Since the 70s IMF and world banks have done exactly that. Their goal to expand debt(hence profit), often at the convenience of periods of dictatorial rule, that bypass, democratic and therefore more accountable processes of national borrowing.