Thread: Usa....usa

Originally Posted by joe greiner

Although it's a welcome relief, some of us will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the sudden reduction in BS. And just when we'd refined it to a high art! Almost perfect, and almost total. But wait! The reduction might not be so immediate. Aaaaaaah.

Cheers,
Joe

Yes, Joe. I know what you mean. However, as an American who has been living in Oz, an unexpected effect occurred for me. I realised when I was in a shop yesterday that, for the first time since the Vietnam war, I was not embarrassed about my accent or my country.

There were many great aspects to this election. In the blink of an eye, and entire population of people came to believe not just in the rhetorical, but in the real. We all grew up being told that, rich or poor, if you really wanted to achieve something in America, you could. It was just words for many until Tuesday. That reality is something that people in other parts of the world can't ignore or disclaim. In that instant, even the most aggressive anti-Americans had to stop and consider that this is a country that not only could but DID elect a black man, and the country is overwhelmingly white in colour.

I am so proud that my other country did this. Of course it will be a difficult road ahead. But I am more than optimistic. My reason is this: If there was a single aspect to Obama's ascent, it was his dogged persistence and his ability to generate and sustain MOMENTUM. Once the world's people calm down, the turn-around will be the product of a sustained confidence-building machine. As people regain their faith, they will buy. They will invest. They will borrow. And once that process starts, helped along by an intellectually capacious individual like Mr Obama, the recovery will be swift and unstoppable.

I'm proud to have voted for him, and finally, after 40 years, proud to be an American.

Originally Posted by jerryc

There could be some change in America's attitude to the rest of the world because this guy has at least lived outside of Fortress America for a few years. While politically he had to backtrack fast, his comment about guns and religion was spot on.
Personally I think America has acted like a brat teeenager throughout the 20th century, acting as a know all, swaggering bully with an ego out of control ( and that's the nice part). Perhaps now it might exhibit signs that it is growing up..

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

Jerry, as a born-again Americanopthile , I agree with you! The 'guns and religion' slip was just his tongue speaking his mind. It was not "politically" correct, but I'm so glad that he sees things that way. The arrogance that was partially knocked out of my beloved USA on Sept 11, 2001 has been further bled by recent events. Now, if humility can flood in, it will hopefully become a wonderfully potent world citizen, rather than an empire unto itself. Don't believe for a second that America is going to whither and die, or suffer an ignominious decline. "Yes We Can" is actually in the American's genes, if not mentality, and as Henry Ford once wrote: "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right."

Originally Posted by cellist

. The arrogance that was partially knocked out of my beloved USA on Sept 11, 2001 has been further bled by recent events. Now, if humility can flood in, it will hopefully become a wonderfully potent world citizen, rather than an empire unto itself. Don't believe for a second that America is going to whither and die, or suffer an ignominious decline. "Yes We Can" is actually in the American's genes, if not mentality, and as Henry Ford once wrote: "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right."

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea

Mike

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea

Mike

Perhaps it will. But the UN needs to be re-organised before it can be a more effective force. So long as any one of a number of countries can veto UN actions, it will be lip service only.

Originally Posted by joe greiner

Jerry, I think the brat teenager was only the last half of the 20th century. In WW2, America (with all our faults) was regarded as the Arsenal of Democracy. I'm pretty much fed up with the 21st so far. I guess you know the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

" " American Empire in the Pacific explores the empire that emerged from the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with Great Britain and the outcome of the Mexican War in 1848. Together, they signalled the mastery of the United States over the continent of North America; the Pacific Ocean and the ancient civilizations of Asia at last lay within reach. England's East India Company in the 17th and 18th centuries had introduced Asian wares including tea to the American colonists, but wars against France and then the struggle for American independence held back expansion by Yankee entrepreneurs until 1783. Thereafter, from the Atlantic seaboard, American ships began regularly to reach China. Merchants, sailors and missionaries, motivated toward trade and redemption like the Europeans they met along the way, encountered the exotic peoples and cultures of the Pacific. Would-be empire builders projected a manifest destiny without limits. Russian Alaska, the native kingdom of Hawai'i, Japan, Korea, Samoa, and Spain's Philippine Islands, as well as a transcontinental railroad and an isthmian canal, acquired strategic significance in American minds, in time to outweigh both commerce and conversion. " "

"American Empire in the Pacific. From Trade to Strategic Balance, 1700-1922 "

Joe , your time frame falls a tad short .

The 'brat teenager' phase may have been since WW2 , but the troublesome child has been so since before birth .

What did you think of the author's viewpoint when you read that book? Was he correct to hold America up as an imperialist power?

I haven't read the book .
I do , and have done for many years , recognize the existence of the American Empire , and it's beginnings in the Pacific .

The quote sums it up rather neatly , in fact it takes the beginnings back further than I had considered .

This is an interesting debate. But it is this informal debate between our American friends that help us to understand their point of view and ours.

I have been to the US three times. My daughter lived in Omaha Nebraska for eight years. My other daughter and her husband work for an International Airline and are there regularly.

When we are there, I cannot believe the warmth and friendship the Americans have for us from Oz. When I was there it made me re evaluate my thinking and realize, that for the average person how close we all are.

Originally Posted by Manuka Jock

The quote sums it up rather neatly , in fact it takes the beginnings back further than I had considered .

With all due respect, the quote may indeed sum up your beliefs rather neatly, but it does not sum up the book at all, which is always the danger of taking something out of context.

The words "trade" and "strategic balance" are the keys to this work, which was not written by the author but edited by him to include a number of papers on the subject. One paper addresses the colonisation attempts in the Philippines, but the primary focus is to help us understand how what began as an urge to compete for Pacific trade routes evolved into a strategic decision to expand our presence in the Pacific.

When the US was primarily on the eastern seaboard, direct trade with Asia was cumbersome and uneconomic. But when the US expanded to the western seaboard, more direct trade was possible and attractive. The Panama Canal made that trade much more economical, not just for the US but for many parts of the world.

But along with trade came the slow realisation that we now had two coastlines to defend, not just one (the "strategic balance" mentioned in the title). That meant finding ways to protect the west coast, such as annexing the Hawaiian Islands. I'm not claiming it was right, I am only explaining the rationale in the context of what was common national behaviour at the time. We had the examples of the British, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Dutch as guides.

In fact, at the root of this "brat" business is that we were only doing what everyone else seemed to be doing. And yet I have not read in any post yet a reference to those other countries as brats or bullies.

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

With all due respect, the quote may indeed sum up your beliefs rather neatly, but it does not sum up the book at all, which is always the danger of taking something out of context.

The words "trade" and "strategic balance" are the keys to this work, which was not written by the author but edited by him to include a number of papers on the subject. One paper addresses the colonisation attempts in the Philippines, but the primary focus is to help us understand how what began as an urge to compete for Pacific trade routes evolved into a strategic decision to expand our presence in the Pacific.

When the US was primarily on the eastern seaboard, direct trade with Asia was cumbersome and uneconomic. But when the US expanded to the western seaboard, more direct trade was possible and attractive. The Panama Canal made that trade much more economical, not just for the US but for many parts of the world.

But along with trade came the slow realisation that we now had two coastlines to defend, not just one (the "strategic balance" mentioned in the title). That meant finding ways to protect the west coast, such as annexing the Hawaiian Islands. I'm not claiming it was right, I am only explaining the rationale in the context of what was common national behaviour at the time. We had the examples of the British, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Dutch as guides.

In fact, at the root of this "brat" business is that we were only doing what everyone else seemed to be doing. And yet I have not read in any post yet a reference to those other countries as brats or bullies.

What 'out of context' is that.
I did not recommend the book or the author .
Joe was wrong in his belief that the USA only started it's empire building after WW2 .
I posted something that pointed that out .
Out of politeness , I posted the source of the quote I cut and pasted .
I could have cut and pasted from another source , I chose that one .


This thread is not about Britain , France , Portugal, Belgian, or the Netherlands , and their nastiness .
Nor is it about the justification of evil .
It is about the self appointed 'world policeman' .

Originally Posted by Manuka Jock

What 'out of context' is that.
I did not recommend the book or the author .
Joe was wrong in his belief that the USA only started it's empire building after WW2 .
I posted something that pointed that out .
Out of politeness , I posted the source of the quote I cut and pasted .
I could have cut and pasted from another source , I chose that one .


This thread is not about Britain , France , Portugal, Belgian, or the Netherlands , and their nastiness .
Nor is it about the justification of evil .
It is about the self appointed 'world policeman' .

I am not seeking an adversarial position, but I am having difficulty following your argument. Joe never said we started empire building after WW II, he said he thought the "brat teenager" part started then. But to stay on track, we won't quibble over it. You can have the point. Even if it started in the 19th Century, it did not start in a vacuum.

So, if the discussion must focus only on the actions of the US without regard to the actions of other countries at the same time, we won't get anywhere and may as well stop now. The US did not do whatever it did or didn't do while everyone else sat around and watched passively.

The out of context simply referred to the fact that you used a book description as a "source" to make your point. A book description, typically written by the bookseller, is not a source, it is a marketing effort. I daresay the editor of the actual book would strongly disagree with your interpretation of his intent.

Bob,
I'm not too bright on multiple quotes so bear with me in having to refer back to the four major points you made.
Firstly I did not expand my comment enough on the Hartz Theory. The US is a combo of cultures over a period of years. The point I should have made is the New England states were settled by Puritans and settled before England's "Imperial" expansion. They developed the culture of punishment, inherant in their religion and also the pattern of creating a stockade, using it to sally forth and deal with the natives.
Much of England's imperialism stemmed from a desire to trade, sometimes carried to extremes it is true, and from it's wish to dump it's social problems. An example of trade imperialism was India. England did not bring India into the Empire until forced to do so after the Indian Mutiny.
You say I confuse military theory and social fabric. Not so. The military is part of the social fabric. England's Civil War produced an army that was never to be under the control of a single man, a Commander in Chief. It is anwserable to Parliament, not the Prime Minister. It was society's response to the Civil war that shaped the army.
You argue that in guerrilla warfare the troops must be protected from the guerrilla. Here we see a response that is socially different.England developed a system of control by first divide and rule and then use the native forces to keep the country quiet. England was reasonably successful in winning hearts and minds. The English military forces tried to advise America to leave the Iraqi army in place when they invaded. The idea was you had a force that had organisation and knowledge and it was a good idea to use that. America knew better. In Malaysia,during the communist guerrilla war, the English made sure their troops were permanently stationed among the villagers. In this way they denied the communists two vital weapons. They could not intimidate the villagers or draw supplies and info from them. Look how Basra compared with Bahgdad. So there are different ways of handling a guerrilla war. Just look at the latest news from Afghanistan. Another wedding party massacre. Afghans fire guns into the air when celebrating. If the troops had considered themselves to be under fire, and note there were no US casualities, then surely a quiet retreat would have been the best policy. Socially the gun culture pervades the military.

You say no forts were built in WW11 or Korea. These were both wars unique to the 20th century. Highly mobile and technical. Even military mindsets can grasp that fact when it's thrust at them.

Then you raised the issue of lend lease and linked it to isolationism, and told me I had omitted the context. You claimed it was a 20th century phenomenon that grew out of US perception that Europe could not stop squabbling after WW1.
Non intervention or isolationism was first raised by America's founding fathers It was enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine that America would never get involved in European affairs. It was effecive until 1917. The American economy depended on foreign trade, supplying food and arms to the allied forces and so became involved in European affairs. After WW1 isolationism returned with the Fordney-McCumber tarriff system that blocked Europe trading on a level playing field with America and indirectly this exacerbated economic strife in Europe leading to war. America also strengthened its immigration laws.

Now we come to "Jittery Joe" Kennedy. You say perhaps the US believed Chamberlain.
Goes a bit deeper than that. Kennedy was a friend of Lady Astor and a part of the Cliveden Set that hated Jews and Communists. They saw Hitler as a solution to such "World Problems". The Nazi ambassador von Dirksen told Hitler that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend." scarcely the situation that you claim of a simple man "believing" Chamberlain.
Why "Jittery Joe"?
Kennedy was living at Windsor, a long way from the epicentre of the Blitz, but was judged a coward by the Brits because of the speed with which he leaded for the air raid shelter at the first sound of a siren.

Dazzler,
I have to disagree with you that more troops are the answer. As I explained above, it is not numbers, but how they are used..

Jerry

Originally Posted by jerryc

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

Bob,
Could this be what you said you had not seen? Sorry, my style of writing is not given to overstatement.

Jerry

Originally Posted by cellist

Yes, Joe. I know what you mean. However, as an American who has been living in Oz, an unexpected effect occurred for me. I realised when I was in a shop yesterday that, for the first time since the Vietnam war, I was not embarrassed about my accent or my country.

There were many great aspects to this election. In the blink of an eye, and entire population of people came to believe not just in the rhetorical, but in the real. We all grew up being told that, rich or poor, if you really wanted to achieve something in America, you could. It was just words for many until Tuesday. That reality is something that people in other parts of the world can't ignore or disclaim. In that instant, even the most aggressive anti-Americans had to stop and consider that this is a country that not only could but DID elect a black man, and the country is overwhelmingly white in colour.

I am so proud that my other country did this. Of course it will be a difficult road ahead. But I am more than optimistic. My reason is this: If there was a single aspect to Obama's ascent, it was his dogged persistence and his ability to generate and sustain MOMENTUM. Once the world's people calm down, the turn-around will be the product of a sustained confidence-building machine. As people regain their faith, they will buy. They will invest. They will borrow. And once that process starts, helped along by an intellectually capacious individual like Mr Obama, the recovery will be swift and unstoppable.

I'm proud to have voted for him, and finally, after 40 years, proud to be an American.

A student of history I am not, to this day I fail to understand
the pervasive strategy behind the Vietnam War for both the US and Oz. Was the threat of the evil communist expansion in Asia really so powerful to drive our leaders of the time to the decisions they made.
Then to go into Iraq without any apparent strategy for lasting control given the experience in Vietnam is beyond belief.
Whats the saying: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I found a comment about the Obama campaign made by a US TV host interesting. His view is that without the support of Oprah Obama was nowhere makes you wonder if todays democracy is more about the spin doctors than the candidates.

Yeah I know a somewhat cynical view born out of the recent Australian federal election but not to take anything away from the Obama win.

It will remain an event that Americans can indeed point to with pride.

Mike