Thread: Beyond Bush: What the world needs is an open, confident America.

That's why I like America: it is not afraid of coming up for it's interests.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Toppling a regime in 100 days is not confident?

You mistake strengh for confidence.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Guardian

I hate to sound like a neorealist, but I must. The US is hated even by those countries that claim they love us. They either resent our luxury, are annoyed with our bravado, or angered by our arrogance or interference. So should the US try to change its PR policies? Should we appear to be a peaceful utopian society where tolerance and trust are our mottos? That would be nice.

Hate is too strong and radical a reaction that one would like to attribute to nations towards the US. 'Irritation' would be a more appropriate word.

One does not have to be a peaceful utopian society. One has to merely be a trifle sensitive to others' views too if one expects others to be sensitive to the US' sensitivity.

Everyone understands that nations have their strategic compulsions. Therefore, the issues should be stated without appearing to be addressing from the pulpit. I am sure very few like nose in the air hectoring when the feet are of clay!

Alienation is not good for taking people on board. Obviously, statements like "with with us or against us" does not win friends because it means that one has no choice to think independently and instead be vassals to the US. It is like saying that either you are Republican or you are not a citizen of the US!

But in order to do so the world must rid itself of: communists, racists, fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists, anti-capitalists, anarchists, Christian theocratic radicals (radical strains of the Mormom and LDS churches), anti-US fanatics (Hugo Chavez), etc.

A point mentioned early on in this discussion is the truth of the situation: America has always been the most paranoid country on the planet and it is this characteristic that guarantees our greatest asset; victory at all costs.

Our paranoia is our greatest source of strength. In International Relations theory "Realists" are those state leaders that do not trust anyone but their own. In essence, 'my country is the only country that I care about. I'll care about your country if its in my country's interest. Otherwise, go f*** yourselves and you're on your own.'

I am sure that this type of a mindset would not foot the bill for Dale Carnegie and his theories in the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

The CIA is the best example of our paranoia bearing fruits of security. The CIA's mission is to explore US paranoia. They find, investigate, and destroy our fears and all those who would harm us. We do these things often times outside international norms and laws. But, nevertheless, we do these things to win and to live. The threats we take out may be less than dangerous, but still a threat.

Unless all intelligence agency have the sense of paranoia, it will not be able to fulfil the role it is designed for.

I wish we would not need a massive military and a huge intelligence budget. I also wish everyone on this planet would love and respect us and vice versa. I wish that the US would have no enemies that would wish to kill American civilians. But let's all be Realists for a second: We're not safe.

By wilfully and with a suicide instinct acquiring enemies will only increase the number of enemies as also spread areas of warring factions around the world. But then without enemies and international hot spots, the defence and industrial nexus will die! Get what I mean?

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

- Eisenhower
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering.

The MIC plays a pivotal role. Much could be said, but then it would require another thread.

The American are great people as peoples go. Most are caring, outgoing and sensitive to the sorrows of all.

But the Govt is driven by compulsions that does not necessarily indicate the warmth and caring of the American people.

And thus the contradiction that perplexes citizens of other nations!

Originally Posted by wabpilot

You mistake strengh for confidence.

Sir,

Yes, I should have put strength.

But I don't see how we've lost our place in the world. We may lack unity, but our place is very much secure. His article, however, is proof of lost confidence, imo.

Originally Posted by Ray

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering.

The MIC plays a pivotal role. Much could be said, but then it would require another thread.

The American are great people as peoples go. Most are caring, outgoing and sensitive to the sorrows of all.

But the Govt is driven by compulsions that does not necessarily indicate the warmth and caring of the American people.

And thus the contradiction that perplexes citizens of other nations!

What? Is this perception so widely held? Maybe in India, but it seems not so much in the Islamic strongholds.

And who created this controversy about American perplexities anyway?

America acts no differently than the Swedes, Egyptians, Russians, or Cherokee tribe would act if put into the nuclearized economically-developed globalized post-internet situation here below the 49th parallel and above the rio grande in the northwest continent circa 2007.

Neocolonialism theory is old and it was coined by Nkhruma of Ghana when the Non Aligned Movement was at its height.

As far as the issue of MIC, it was stated by Dwight Eisenhower, a US citizen and a five star General who was a President of the US and a Republican.

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

And who created this controversy about American perplexities anyway?

America acts no differently than the Swedes, Egyptians, Russians, or Cherokee tribe would act if put into the nuclearized economically-developed globalized post-internet situation here below the 49th parallel and above the rio grande in the northwest continent circa 2007.

That can be only seen when the Swedes, Egyptian, Russians have plonked themselves into the nuclearized economically-developed globalized post-internet situation here below the 49th parallel and above the rio grande in the northwest continent circa 2007.

Originally Posted by Ray

That can be only seen when the Swedes, Egyptian, Russians have plonked themselves into the nuclearized economically-developed globalized post-internet situation here below the 49th parallel and above the rio grande in the northwest continent circa 2007.

Okay, I guess if we're going to be intellectually honest.

But opportunities costs are determined vis a vis the nation's circumstance in IPE. That's all I'm contending. America is not the only nation making calculated strategies about things.