1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do you think the US is trying to take over the world?

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by bandit, 12 Nov 2002.

  1. bandit

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Nov 2002

    Posts: 4,277

    Location: Brum, Brum, Brum, Brum....

    :D

    MAD_BANDIT
     
  2. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Bush already thinks he's President of the world.
     
  3. Hellsmk2

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,378

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Stiff_Cookie

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,851

    Location: Abilene, Texas

    BUSH IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!! First he is going to take over the countries that already hate him then he will move on to the ones that will begin to hate him. He is powermad I tell you, power mad!!! All Americans want to do is take over the world!! All Americans































    The above is brought to you in in part by Sarcasm, you number one source of sarcasm:D
     
  5. Will

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,432

    Location: Halesowen

    Personally I doubt the US is trying to take over the world....I feel (and hope!) that George Bush's rhetoric is more aimed at getting the subject in the world communitys agenda rather than serious intent. Nothing more likely to grab the UNs attention and get the issue on the table for discussion than coming out with strong (and alarming statements).

    There was this idea I read about once (I forget what its called) that I think Reagan was fond of, where the world is 'scared' into submission by the US government making harsh and alarming statements that would grab the attention of other governments and realise they mean business, and as a result would cave in to the will of the US. Its kind of bullying if you think about it one way, but just bluffing if you look another way.

    Whatever you think about George Bush, I think saying 'he's trying to take over the world' would be too strong...and even if you think Dubyas a raving loony texas cowboy who wants to ' go baarmb anywaaahn I dunt laaahk', do you think his aides are as well? Colin Powell (for example) has the right idea IMHO and restrains many of the more hawkish elements, which can only be a good thing.

    My 2p :)
     
  6. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Not Colin Powell, but Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft? Three of the most ultra-right wing hawks you could ever (not) wish to encounter.
     
  7. Will

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,432

    Location: Halesowen

    And who's won them over so far with Iraq ;) Colin Powell always preferred the UN way over Iraq and it seems thats the way its going atm. There are right wing elements within the US government like you've mentioned, but there are (fortunately) a few doves, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and no dougt a few other less well known, less important advisors that seek to restrain the more right wing elements.

    Surely Bush isn't going to be able to ride roughshod over these peoples objections? I don't really think he has so far, and I hope he won't (but then again I don't think he will....Bush on his own has comparitively little knowledge of international affairs compared to Powell, and given powell is the state department bigwig, I don't think Bush would ever be able to ignore him without causing major rifts at the top of his administration).

    My 2p! :)
     
  8. Stiff_Cookie

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,851

    Location: Abilene, Texas

    Realisticly we dont know what goes on behind those closed doors. Is it all impossible that this whole thing has been staged? Have the USA start aggressions, let the UN step in and give saddam a way out. Bring attention to the situation lets Saddam know that action will be taken and gives him a way out of a war.
     
  9. Élynduil

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,565

    Location: London

    America would love to have an empire like all other powers have done in the past but today it can't so there is only warmongering to do as well as interfering.
     
  10. Stiff_Cookie

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,851

    Location: Abilene, Texas

    Empires are a thing of the past and the US knows that. Thats why Cuba and Afghanistan and Germany and Panama and Korea are not States of the United States. How many stars do you guys think are on the US flag? I know how many but do you guys?
     
  11. Élynduil

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,565

    Location: London

    They do realise that they're a thing of the past but they don't particually like that. America has been trying to find an alternative outlet for the imperial stage of development and still isn't sated.
     
  12. Will

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,432

    Location: Halesowen

    I edited it to save an argument, basically I find at times you just rolleyes at someone, and post something thats annoyingly sarcastic and afterwards i though 'hmmm this will set him off again' and thought better of it mmkay ;) apart from that I read it again and again i wondered if it was true or not. As for the excuse, maybe I'm too proud to edit it to say 'this is perhaps a load of tosh I'm spouting here', kapeesh?

    But anyways, since I've been discovered :p

    You said
    And I wondered how that would be the case since many believed George Bush (and to a greater extent, his party) was the most isolationist (or at least anti-interventionist) leader America has had since before WW2 (at least before 9/11), and that isolationism is (to me) pretty much the opposite of imperialism...if it was isolationist, how could it be trying to find an alternative outlet for the imperial stage of development?

    But then again Bush's isolationism never really lasted long did it (9/11 saw to that), and those before him were interventionist, but not so much imperialist (remind me again who Clinton invaded and occupied....)

    Anyways, I'm off to watch the news....night all.

    :)
     
  13. Élynduil

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,565

    Location: London

    *Laughs* I may use sarcasm in SC still but I always mean what I say here. Sorry for rumbling you but it amuses me. ;)

    Your last paragraph says what I was going to, Bush wasn't in power long before 9/11 and even if he was I could argue that all before him haven't been at all like that. And judging by his father even without 9/11 he would have done something.
     
  14. Useful idiot

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 209

    Location: Barnsley

    Even if they were isolationist in terms of not interfering militarily, they can still be imperialist. America is in a position of power because of its economy, the global ecomomy means the influnce extends everywhere.
     
  15. Stiff_Cookie

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,851

    Location: Abilene, Texas

    Why are you judging the actions of Bush Jr. on what his father did. It is harldy a fair assessment. He is being called and imperialist when the only thing he has done so far is kick the people who attacked him out of a country. The US didnt plant its own government there, in gact they didnt want any part in the government process. What countries exactly has the US tried to take over? Why dont we have more than 50 states then?
     
  16. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,417

    Location: UK

    If America wanted to take over the world, they could quite easily have gone a long way to achieving that goal already. The very fact that they havent done so indicates that they have no real wish to.
     
  17. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Not literally, but I do think that America sees itself as having a god-given (literally - listen to all the God Bless America stuff.. pass the sickbag) right to be the 'leader' of the world, and to get its own way over everything. Look at the bully-boy tactics over steel imports just a while ago - and that was how they treat their friends the UK! If that's how they treat their friends I wouldn't wanna be their enemies.

    The USA expect to get their own way and usually do, through either diplomatic, economic or military bullying.
     
  18. bandit

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Nov 2002

    Posts: 4,277

    Location: Brum, Brum, Brum, Brum....

  19. bandit

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Nov 2002

    Posts: 4,277

    Location: Brum, Brum, Brum, Brum....

    Although you could argue that their tactics meant hat they already have 'gone a long way to achieving that goal already'

    Take for example Afghanistan - it seems to me that the lives of people there are not worth as much as those that died in the twin towers, since there are estimates thatr say more have died there then in the Twin towers.

    Bandit
     
  20. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,417

    Location: UK

    America is the leader of the free world, im sorry if people dont like that but its plain fact. They are the single most powerful nation on the planet and they are the de facto leader of this planet. It may not be right or desirable but thats the situation.

    Its also useful to note that it was European violence that made America the leader of the free world, not American ambition.

    Mad, the people that died in Afghanistan arent worth as much as those that died in the WTC, to the Americans. Just the same as those that died in the WTC arent worth as much as those who died in Afghanistan, to the Afghans. Just as Palestinians dont view Israeli dead as important as their own and vice versa. Every nation, group or culture on the planet will mourn more for one of their own than a stranger. Its not solely an American trait.