Has America Become a Machine of Evil?

[Willoughby]

Germany.
Japan.
Korea.
Now, you're going to argue that 'the seeds' were already there - which is, of course, nonsense.

where there not seeds of democracy in germany. remember the weinmar republic?

 

[Goobieman]

where there not seeds of democracy in germany. remember the weinmar republic?

The Weimar Republic failed -specifically- because there were no seeds of democracy. Germany's successful democracy TODAY has nothing to do with the 'seed' of Weimar; it, like in Japan and Korea, has EVERYTHING to do with the US "forcing" Democracy on them.

 

[Volker]

The Weimar Republic is often referenced as a Democracy without Democrats.

However, there were seeds of democracy, they were there in Weimar Republic and they were there in German Empire.

If you take a closer look at German democracy, it works different than American democracy. The structure is almost the same like in German Empire and in Weimar Republic, but it is much more of a representative democracy than Weimar Republic was.

 

[Goobieman]

, it works different than American democracy. The structure is almost the same like in German Empire and in Weimar Republic, but it is much more of a representative democracy than Weimar Republic was.

That's true, but its also meaningless.
It works today because the people WANT it to work and are COMMITTED to it working. Not so 1919-1933.

 

[Deegan]

This is precisely why we need to take more care of our own country, and do less taking care of others. We will never be shown any gratitude, not that we did the things we did, just to have everyone love and respect us, but it's just not going to happen. America is much too busy with everyone else, and not busy enough with America. We are in debt, we have three states to rebuild, and our country is painfully divided, these things need to be our priority right now. There is certainly something we can learn from Europeans, and that's, take care of number 1, so let's at least give them credit for looking out for themselves, we should do the same.

 

[Volker]

That's true, but its also meaningless.
It works today because the people WANT it to work and are COMMITTED to it working. Not so 1919-1933.

Today's democracy is much more popular than Weimar republic democracy ever was.
This might have to do with development processes in society because of experiences or with the simple fact, that this democracy worked better so far.
People want it and people are committed, true.

There is certainly something we can learn from Europeans, and that's, take care of number 1, so let's at least give them credit for looking out for themselves, we should do the same.

Good plan.

 

[doughgirl]

Deegan said, "This is precisely why we need to take more care of our own country, and do less taking care of others."

I agee to a point that we neglect many of the important issues at home, but to what degree do you mean ignore the world?

"We will never be shown any gratitude, not that we did the things we did, just to have everyone love and respect us, but it's just not going to happen."

Does it matter that much that we are absolutely adored by the world? We will be hated no matter what we do. I remember a few years back when Bush announced that we would give $$$$$ (I believe it was billions but can't remember the exact amount) to Africa towards the AIDS crisis. We were bashed by eveyrone because we didn't give enough. Whenever there is a world disaster we are one of the first to show up........we are still bashed. So why should it be such a priority that the world love us? We do waht we think we should do and for the most part we do ok.

"America is much too busy with everyone else, and not busy enough with America. We are in debt, we have three states to rebuild, and our country is painfully divided, these things need to be our priority right now."

I totally agree that the country is divided on many issues. And unfortunately I don't see us coming together. We only come together when we are attacked like on 9-11. We have a two party system in this country that shows such hatred towards each other that, that is the only thing that motivates them, HATE and bringing the other down. so the social issues in this country will never win and nothing permanent will ever get done.

"There is certainly something we can learn from Europeans, and that's, take care of number 1, so let's at least give them credit for looking out for themselves, we should do the same."

Well I disagree on this one. The Europeans failed miserably. Countries like France and England who used to rule the world......do not and they are painfully aware of it.

I do believe however we have an ignorance of the world and our critics from around the world have at every opportunity expose all of our misdoings. We are not always in the right, but neither are they. Twice in the twentieth century we have saved the world. (Nazi threat and from Soviet totalitarianism) And in both instances we have rebuild BOTH nations. Today they are both close allies. and we are in the process of rebuilding Afganistan.

I think for the Third World, it is impossible to acknowledge how good America is because if they do they are forced to admit how bad their own countries are.
I do not feel we shoudl be so concerned to what the world thinks of us. But I do agree that we ignore our own and its painfully showing.

 

[Volker]

Twice in the twentieth century we have saved the world. (Nazi threat and from Soviet totalitarianism) And in both instances we have rebuild BOTH nations. Today they are both close allies. and we are in the process of rebuilding Afganistan.

In your patriotic enthusiasm you overrate American efforts by far. The Nazi's were defeated mostly by the Soviets. Russians and other peoples in the East decided themselves to choose a new way. Americans gave money to West Germany and Afghanistan to rebuild. However, Americans did not rebuild Germany or Russia and they don't rebuild Afghanistan.

 

[Goobieman]

In your patriotic enthusiasm you overrate American efforts by far. The Nazi's were defeated mostly by the Soviets.

And if not for the US/UK effort in the west, all of Germany (if not Western Europe) would have been overrun by said Soviets, and there'd be no talk of how great German democracy is.

The US didnt so much defeat Germany as the US SAVED Germany.

Russians and other peoples in the East decided themselves to choose a new way

And they were -able- to choose this "new way" because...?

Americans did not rebuild Germany or Russia

America didnt rebuild Germany?
They dont teach you about the Marshall Plan over there?
We offered to extend the benifits of the MP to the Soviets. They said no.

and they don't rebuild Afghanistan.

I see you are completely unaware of what's going on in the world.

America seem to have more talent in destroying things.

As I state dbefore -- the US is the only country in the history of the world that not only rebuilds its defeated enemies, but turns them into open, liberal, free democratic states.

That's a "talent" that no one else has.

 

[Volker]

And if not for the US/UK effort in the west, all of Germany (if not Western Europe) would have been overrun by said Soviets, and there'd be no talk of how great German democracy is.

The US didnt so much defeat Germany as the US SAVED Germany.

They did "save" Germany from Soviets? Yes, I think, this is what they wanted to do, but there was no reason to do so.

And they were -able- to choose this "new way" because...?

Because of changes in the society, when Mr. Gorbachev was in charge.

America didnt rebuild Germany?
They dont teach you about the Marshall Plan over there?
We offered to extend the benifits of the MP to the Soviets. They said no.

They teached us about Marshall plan including the reasons, the east did not accepted it, when I was in school.

I see you are completely unaware of what's going on in the world.

Yes, strong argument.

 

[Goobieman]

They did "save" Germany from Soviets? Yes, I think, this is what they wanted to do, but there was no reason to do so.

There was no reason for the US/UK to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and Western Europe?

Because of changes in the society, when Mr. Gorbachev was in charge.

And those changes -- Gorbachev introduced them, because...?

They teached us about Marshall plan including the reasons, the east did not accepted it, when I was in school.

So, the US --did-- rebuild Germany, contrary to your claim that the US did NOT rebuild Germany.

Yes, strong argument.

Given your posts thus far, its pretty obvious.

 

[Volker]

There was no reason for the US/UK to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and Western Europe?

Exactly.

And those changes -- Gorbachev introduced them, because...??

He had a vision about the country, which was different from what was there before.

So, the US --did-- rebuild Germany, contrary to your claim that the US did NOT rebuild Germany.

No, they did not. They gave credits, raw material, food and goods to West Germany.

Given your posts thus far, its pretty obvious.

Strong argument, again.

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

They did "save" Germany from Soviets? Yes, I think, this is what they wanted to do, but there was no reason to do so.

Well, alot of people were trying to get out of East Germany due to the lack of political freedoms and the economy being in shambles, the Soviets, without US troops in West Germany, most certainly would have crossed the border and conquored the rest of Europe and put the rest of Europe under similar circumstances as East Germany, after conquoring them.

Because of changes in the society, when Mr. Gorbachev was in charge.

Those changes came along also due to the US military buildup initiated by Ronald Reagan. His hardline stance accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union because he basically initiated economic warfare, by forcing the Soviets into an arms race they could not afford to pay for.

They teached us about Marshall plan including the reasons, the east did not accepted it, when I was in school.

So, what were some of reasons the Soviets refused the Marshall Plan? It would seem obvious to me it was because the Soviets did not want any developing capitalism in East Europe or within it's own borders, or it was because the capitalist US was a natural enemy to the socialist Soviet Union, why would they take the aid?

 

[Goobieman]

Exactly.

OK...
Why did the US/UK NOT need to keep the USSR from taking over all of Europe?

He had a vision about the country, which was different from what was there before.

His "vision" was "Do what I need to to do keep it from collapsing, because that's were **** headed". He failed.

No, they did not. They gave credits, raw material, food and goods to West Germany.

OMFG.
Please tell me how this isnt a disticntion w/o a difference.
Then tell me whose contractors did the work of rebuilding.

 

[Volker]

Well, alot of people were trying to get out of East Germany due to the lack of political freedoms and the economy being in shambles, the Soviets, without US troops in West Germany, most certainly would have crossed the border and conquored the rest of Europe and put the rest of Europe under similar circumstances as East Germany, after conquoring them.

Yes, most certainly.

Those changes came along also due to the US military buildup initiated by Ronald Reagan. His hardline stance accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union because he basically initiated economic warfare, by forcing the Soviets into an arms race they could not afford to pay for.

Both sides have been able to destroy the earth like twenty times or so.
Both sides could have decided to stop the race without risking to much. This is what they did.

So, what were some of reasons the Soviets refused the Marshall Plan? It would seem obvious to me it was because the Soviets did not want any developing capitalism in East Europe or within it's own borders, or it was because the capitalist US was a natural enemy to the socialist Soviet Union, why would they take the aid?

Yes, they did not like the conditions, because it was not compliant with socialist systems. There is the question, if the offer for Soviet Union was meant seriously at all.

 

[Volker]

OK...
Why did the US/UK NOT need to keep the USSR from taking over all of Europe?

What? The Soviet Union was not the enemy, it was an ally.

His "vision" was "Do what I need to to do keep it from collapsing, because that's were **** headed". He failed.

Yes, he failed. His vision did not work. At least it did not develop the way, he planned it.
It developed another way and I think, he is not unhappy about, but I'm not sure.

Please tell me how this isnt a disticntion w/o a difference.
Then tell me whose contractors did the work of rebuilding.

You don't know the difference between rebuild something and giving a credit? Come, on, you know it. However, this help was of big importance for West German people, probably it would have taken longer to develop otherwise.

Whose contractors did the work? Well, there were some West German companies left, many of them have been founded during this years.

 

[Goobieman]

What? The Soviet Union was not the enemy, it was an ally.

They were a co-belligerent.
Why do you think they would have stopped at the Elbe, the Rhine, the Seine or the Channel, if not for the US/UK presence on the other side?

Yes, he failed. His vision did not work. At least it did not develop the way, he planned it. It developed another way and I think, he is not unhappy about, but I'm not sure.

His country was collapsing because of the pressure applied by US.
Without that pressure, there woudl have been no opportunity for a 'new choice' for the people of the Warsaw pact.

You don't know the difference between rebuild something and giving a credit? Come, on, you know it. However, this help was of big importance for West German people, probably it would have taken longer to develop otherwise.

yawn.
The US rebuilt Western Europe. Period.

 

[Volker]

They were a co-belligerent.
Why do you think they would have stopped at the Elbe, the Rhine, the Seine or the Channel, if not for the US/UK presence on the other side?

It has all been negotiated in Tehran in 1943. There was a plan for post-war Europe.

His country was collapsing because of the pressure applied by US.
Without that pressure, there woudl have been no opportunity for a 'new choice' for the people of the Warsaw pact.?

No, they could have ignored this pressure. China, for instance, not even tried to join the race. The problems were in the society itself.

yawn.

It's getting late here, I'll probably check the board tomorrow..

The US rebuilt Western Europe. Period.

Believe it, if it makes you happy :2razz:

 

[Goobieman]

It has all been negotiated in Tehran in 1943. There was a plan for post-war Europe.

What's your point?
Why do you think that, had we not been in Western Europe in 1945. Stalin would have not hunted down all the Germans in France, etc, and then decided to keep it all, seeing as we never created that 2nd front we promised?

No, they could have ignored this pressure. China, for instance, not even tried to join the race. The problems were in the society itself.

Seeing as the pressure was a direct result of their actions, I'm not sure how they could ignore it.

Believe it, if it makes you happy :2razz:

Reality generally does.

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Yes, most certainly.

The Soviets probably would have invaded West Germany if the US didn't have the atomic bomb.

Both sides have been able to destroy the earth like twenty times or so.
Both sides could have decided to stop the race without risking to much. This is what they did.

Well Reagan initiated a Star Wars missle defense program, the Soviets had no choice but participate in an arms race they could not afford out of fear, that if Reagan's Star Wars program was successful, this would grant the United States a first strike capability, where the US could use nuclear weapons but the Soviets could not do so in return, due to the fact their missles would be shot down. This would grant strategic superiority to the United States.

 

[afr0byte]

Hmm, I voted yes, but it was only in regards to a couple things. Namely, we preemptively went to Iraq and some of Bush's environmental policies (well, most of his policies I guess...healthcare, etc..). Anyways, certainly the U.S. isn't evil. In fact, I wouldn't use that word to describe anything.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Why do you want to free terrorists so that they can go off and murder innocent civilians?

If we got all these terrorists locked up, why is it we can't get one single conviction? Care to answer that, magna cum laud? Not one conviction. We even screwed up the trial of the terrorist that plead guilty!

Not one god-damn conviction! So where are all the terrorists?

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Hmm, I voted yes, but it was only in regards to a couple things. Namely, we preemptively went to Iraq and some of Bush's environmental policies (well, most of his policies I guess...healthcare, etc..). Anyways, certainly the U.S. isn't evil. In fact, I wouldn't use that word to describe anything.

So, you do not believe in the concept of good and evil?

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

If we got all these terrorists locked up, why is it we can't get one single conviction? Care to answer that, magna cum laud? Not one conviction. We even screwed up the trial of the terrorist that plead guilty!

Not one god-damn conviction! So where are all the terrorists?

The reason why they are having trouble with the Mousaui case, he is guilty, I am sure, but the reason is because the lawyer, I believe it is the prosecutor used some illegal practices in order to attempt to convict a terrorists, and I guess, she was doing this in order to further her own career, so, the evidence gathered, had to be thrown out of court. In the American system of justice, a guilty man may walk free due to techicalities in the law and the individual's rights being violated by law enforcement or the prosecutor and the innocent maybe sent away to prison, sometimes for the rest of their lives, for a crime they did not commit due to malacious prosecution or a prosecutor or corrupt law enforcement being able to make an innocent person seem or appear guilty before a jury in a court of law. In the court room, it's all about perception rather than truth. The defense lawyers know this and the prosecutors know this, that is why it is important for the prosecutor to demonize the defendant while the defense lawyer must seek to portray the defendant in a different light, the truth is of little significance sometimes. Perception and forming the perceptions of the jury to your side is important. A good juror would understand these concepts and enable to see through the prosecutor's attempts to demonize the defendant but also see through the defense's tatics as well and try to find the truth.

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Speaking of perception, a good nation will put alot of value on truth rather than perception or deception. Does American society put more value on honest, genuine truth or does it put more value on perception and deception?