NationStates Jolt Archive

Barnett, Thomas. The Pentagon's New Map. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2004.

I put the bibliographical entry on top so that no one would have any question where to find this book. I just finished reading it. Prof. Thomas Barnett, a researcher at the Naval War College in Portsmouth, RI, is proposing what he feels should be America's security strategy, based on globalization's advance. Love him or hate him, his book is one of those rare ones that crystallizes an arguement for debate, not just throwing one liners at one another.

In a nutshell, it argues that America has a new security committment. He divides the world between the core and the gap. The core is economically developed, politically stable, and largely peaceful. The gap is just the opposite, and includes the Carribean and the Andes nations, nearly all of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and SE Asia. These regions are the biggest threat to us today, and require long-term committment not just by America, but by the private sector of the core, to develope the region. Globalization, he argues, is a good thing, like what occurred after WWII. America needs to focus on expanding globalization, but this time, there's no near peer to worry about, or one that will come in the near future (like China). However, only the tragedy of 9/11 started to have analysts in the Pentagon move beyond Cold War thinking. As I said, you're free to agree or disagree with this idea, but this guy has gained audiences with Congress, Donald Rumsfeld, Esquire magazine readers, National Public Radio, and the British House of Commons.

bump

bump

Show the map.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/images/globes.jpg
The book has one far more comprehensive than this, but the shaded area is where we're talking about, and where nearly all wars of the 21st century will be fought in.
Even better, actually, here's the Esquire article.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/images/globes.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm&h=628&w=1240&sz=155&tbnid=IQGqpX7DaFkJ:&tbnh=75&tbnw=148&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DThe%2BPentagon%2527s%2BNew%2BMap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

bump

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/images/globes.jpg
The book has one far more comprehensive than this, but the shaded area is where we're talking about, and where nearly all wars of the 21st century will be fought in.
Even better, actually, here's the Esquire article.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/images/globes.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm&h=628&w=1240&sz=155&tbnid=IQGqpX7DaFkJ:&tbnh=75&tbnw=148&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DThe%2BPentagon%2527s%2BNew%2BMap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN





Bah! This is nothing but bulls*it and propaganda from a warmongering fuc*wad! We don't HAVE to go into these countries AT ALL..

Bah! This is nothing but bulls*it and propaganda from a warmongering fuc*wad! We don't HAVE to go into these countries AT ALL..
Are you serious, or are you just pretending to be serious? You're writing like you're pretending it.

Are you serious, or are you just pretending to be serious? You're writing like you're pretending it.



Oh, sorry, you must be a Neocon Crony...Well, in that case, Fu*k off...

(Seriously, you should'nt post stuff like that just to ridicule the people who don't like it, just to push your creepy political agenda)

Oh, sorry, you must be a Neocon Crony...Well, in that case, Fu*k off...

(Seriously, you should'nt post stuff like that just to ridicule the people who don't like it, just to push your creepy political agenda)
I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Not only will it improve the world, but it'll enrich the rest of the core. In the long run, it'll eliminate conditions that breed terrorism, as well as help promote individual liberty, develope this gap, and help to bring about Emmanuel Kant's "perpetual peace". Dr. Barnett, btw, is a liberal.

I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Not only will it improve the world, but it'll enrich the rest of the core. In the long run, it'll eliminate conditions that breed terrorism, as well as help promote individual liberty, develope this gap, and help to bring about Emmanuel Kant's "perpetual peace". Dr. Barnett, btw, is a liberal.



He suggested military action, among other things. There's no reason to send the military all around the world in this search for "perpetual peace" that will never happen AS LONG AS GOVERNMENTS KEEP MEDDLING IN THE BUSINESSES OF OTHER NATIONS.

I don't think Globalization means, necessarily, invading every country that's a potential danger. It could mean that, and seems to under Bush, but there is obviously a better way to go about it.

Reaching out, understanding other cultures, finding the reason for their unrest, and doing positive things to help countries become stable, peaceful, modern nations seems a good idea.

Becoming globally aware = good

Trying to become the de facto ruler of the globe = bad

I don't think Globalization means, necessarily, invading every country that's a potential danger. It could mean that, and seems to under Bush, but there is obviously a better way to go about it.

Reaching out, understanding other cultures, finding the reason for their unrest, and doing positive things to help countries become stable, peaceful, modern nations seems a good idea.

Becoming globally aware = good

Trying to become the de facto ruler of the globe = bad
But here's the catch: many of these countries are unstable. Foreign direct investment is overwhelmingly the main engine of growth in the world. But by nature, money is a coward. It does not go where it is safe. Foreign aid is very good, but it can only act as a band-aid, not a cure. Therefore, the best way for money to flow is if it can feel secure, and only the US can do that. It doesn't require a "who's next?" strategy, as I believe in the domino effect when it comes to individual liberties. It primarily involves just a few bad leaders removed, and their nations rebuilt. Many nations in these regions are already democratic, but are threatened from within, like Indonesia, the Philipines, and Nigeria. They all need a security force in their borders.

He suggested military action, among other things. There's no reason to send the military all around the world in this search for "perpetual peace" that will never happen AS LONG AS GOVERNMENTS KEEP MEDDLING IN THE BUSINESSES OF OTHER NATIONS.
And why would you say that?

Attacking China would be bring an immediate nuclear war to our doorstep since they have nukes and North Korea would take China's side and they have nukes leading to millons of deaths.

Attacking China would be bring an immediate nuclear war to our doorstep since they have nukes and North Korea would take China's side and they have nukes leading to millons of deaths.
Right, but as Dr. Barnett is saying, this shouldn't happen. At worst, they'll standoff with us on Taiwan, but would not incur the military wrath of the US. They have bigger fish to fry, like the Dalai Lama, or Falun Gong :). Besides, we depend on eachother economically far too much.

bump

The insane amount of money It would take to do something like this would be better spent here, in America. If we give aid, whose to say they won't misspend it, like they allways do?

Oh, and kick out "a few bad leaders"? With military force I presume? This is utterly foolish, and will only lead to several more quagmires around the world, and suck up more tax money. We are allready strecthed as thin as we can go, if we want to "liberate" more countries, it's going to take a draft, and I DO NOT support such a measure, neither should any other Bill-of-Rights-loving American.

So, basically, he is suggesting invading countries where the locals have dark skin. Or at least imposing the Western cultural order upon them. To improve the condition of the people, of course!

Pretty much what the British, French and Spanish spent most of the last 400 years doing, with the exact same justification. "We're only doing this to help you...now open up your markets or else." It's imperialism, pure and simple, with all the racism that is implicit in such ventures.

Remarkable how a country that believes itself to be the model of youthful progressiveness now wishes to pursue such an anachronistic policy.

I think the US needs to look within before even contemplating such a horrendous agenda. Judging from the results of Iraq to date, it is apparent that any further US expansionist endeavours in the near future would be far too costly, especially in regards to human resources, to pursue.

This agenda has greed written all over it, and unless the rich elite are going to suit up to fight these battles, I just don't see it happening.

The U.S needs to fix it's own problems, of which it has many. To even think that we have the right to go out and "make the world a better place" when we don't even have our own house in order is utterly Bombastic and Pompous.

So, basically, he is suggesting invading countries where the locals have dark skin. Or at least imposing the Western cultural order upon them. To improve the condition of the people, of course!

Pretty much what the British, French and Spanish spent most of the last 400 years doing, with the exact same justification. "We're only doing this to help you...now open up your markets or else." It's imperialism, pure and simple, with all the racism that is implicit in such ventures.

Remarkable how a country that believes itself to be the model of youthful progressiveness now wishes to pursue such an anachronistic policy.
In the book, he spends an entire chapter explaining why you are wrong. This is not an imperialistic policy. By definition, an empire helps the government. That is not so with this. The private sectors of not just the US, but the entire core benefit. Besides, the British in particular had very good results for their empire. Former British colonies tend to be better off today than even former French colonies. Look at India, which has the world's largest skilled workforce, and is the world's largest democracy. Or South Africa, whiich has one of Africa's most robust economies as the British invested so much in developing the area. The settler colonies especially turned out well.
I think this is what the author is saying here. In addition, this has a security threat attached to it. So long as this gap exists, terrorists will exist. For at the end of the day, no matter what political or idealogical grievances exist against us, the fundemental reason they hate us is because the US is the champion of everything they don't want.

Look at India, which has the world's largest skilled workforce, and is the world's largest democracy. I'll give you South Africa, but India has fallen behind China in many ways- for example, per capita income. Also, India's skilled workforce is large in actual numbers but incredibly low in percentage; there are just a lot of people there.

I think the US needs to look within before even contemplating such a horrendous agenda. Judging from the results of Iraq to date, it is apparent that any further US expansionist endeavours in the near future would be far too costly, especially in regards to human resources, to pursue.
Not really. Financially, it is certainly worth it, especially if economic liberty is introduced into Iraq, much like the US did for Central Europe and Japan fifty years ago. In terms of human resources, how does it cost much? Only about one in every eight injured soldiers eventually die, compared to a 1:3 ratio in Vietnam. It'd be far lower if our troops were better trained, or as Dr. Barnett calls it, a system administration force, which the army is not.
This agenda has greed written all over it, and unless the rich elite are going to suit up to fight these battles, I just don't see it happening.
a.) with or without the US, it is happening. In just twenty years, a whole slew of nations from China, to Brazil, to the former Soviet bloc have joined the core. It is likely that Malaysia, Indonesia, and a few other nations will join in less than a generation, and no matter what happens in Iraq, it is on the path to being the region's most stable, prosperous, and free nation (or nations) sometime in the next thirty years. Central Asia may also head in a similar direction.
Is greed involved in this? Yes. In fact, I'm glad it is. Capitalism is the only system where greed can be harnessed as a good thing. It is an energy source more plentiful than sunlight, so why not harness it? If greedy men and women didn't exist, neither would today's economy.

I'll give you South Africa, but India has fallen behind China in many ways- for example, per capita income. Also, India's skilled workforce is large in actual numbers but incredibly low in percentage; there are just a lot of people there.
Still, most third world nations don't even have any skilled workforces. But that was just an example, really. India has other hopeful signs. For example, 100 million people have come out of abject poverty in ten years, or 10% of their population.
Also, India is a fully functioning liberal democracy, which is better than most gap nations have. Most of the "democracies" in the gap are really dictators that are elected. We are seeing that with Russia, though it is in the core for economic and security reasons. Anyhow, these democracies in the gap have a life expectancy of a decade at the most. With the exception of India, most democracies die in economically poor conditions.

Interesting how many of you seem to equate Globalism with Imperialism with Protectionism. The three are not the same.

Currently, the United States is practicing Protectionism, not Imperialism as some of you have incorrectly suggested. The U.S. has decided to analyze existing threats to its security and neutralize those threats before they bring forth destruction. The view is simple: there will never be peace on Earth; there will always be someone, somewhere who will resort to violence, and the best way to survive in that world is to eliminate the violent threats to your nation before they try to eliminate you. In no way does that remotely resemble Imperialism.

Interesting how many of you seem to equate Globalism with Imperialism with Protectionism. The three are not the same.

Currently, the United States is practicing Protectionism, not Imperialism as some of you have incorrectly suggested. The U.S. has decided to analyze existing threats to its security and neutralize those threats before they bring forth destruction. The view is simple: there will never be peace on Earth; there will always be someone, somewhere who will resort to violence, and the best way to survive in that world is to eliminate the violent threats to your nation before they try to eliminate you. In no way does that remotely resemble Imperialism.
Thank you. I think the author was trying to say that. While he emphasizes a security role for the US, it's simply forging more alliances and such. In his book, he says he's interested in a Pacific version of NATO, with China as an important member. Other than that, the military is primarily to intervene when either the security situation gets unstable, or an autocrat (especially an extremely opressive and terrorist-like one, such as Kim Jong-Il), is in power.

In the book, he spends an entire chapter explaining why you are wrong. This is not an imperialistic policy. By definition, an empire helps the government. That is not so with this. The private sectors of not just the US, but the entire core benefit. Besides, the British in particular had very good results for their empire. Former British colonies tend to be better off today than even former French colonies. Look at India, which has the world's largest skilled workforce, and is the world's largest democracy. Or South Africa, whiich has one of Africa's most robust economies as the British invested so much in developing the area. The settler colonies especially turned out well.
I think this is what the author is saying here. In addition, this has a security threat attached to it. So long as this gap exists, terrorists will exist. For at the end of the day, no matter what political or idealogical grievances exist against us, the fundemental reason they hate us is because the US is the champion of everything they don't want.

So what? The core is (as far as I have understood, and I have not seen the map in question) the private sector of the western world. I don't care if it is on my behalf AND of the US, it is still imperialistic.

That India is biggest in numbers have nothing to do with their sucess. If that is what this professor has suggested I recomend him to do at least the basic years of primary school once again, he has some grave problems with the logics/mathematics.

Look at other colonial areas, Zimbabwe for example. But I guess that Zimbabwe is just a marked area on this map, as everything else that doesn't fit in with this theory.

Of course he is right in the long term about terrorism, but look at at this in short term, is this plan of military action anywhere near the word realistic? These countries won't just give themselves up to the west, even if the power is on our side. And what are the chances of America to get allies for this? Won't that lead to an American boicott by nonUS companies?

Not really. Financially, it is certainly worth it, especially if economic liberty is introduced into Iraq, much like the US did for Central Europe and Japan fifty years ago. In terms of human resources, how does it cost much? Only about one in every eight injured soldiers eventually die, compared to a 1:3 ratio in Vietnam. It'd be far lower if our troops were better trained, or as Dr. Barnett calls it, a system administration force, which the army is not.

a.) with or without the US, it is happening. In just twenty years, a whole slew of nations from China, to Brazil, to the former Soviet bloc have joined the core. It is likely that Malaysia, Indonesia, and a few other nations will join in less than a generation, and no matter what happens in Iraq, it is on the path to being the region's most stable, prosperous, and free nation (or nations) sometime in the next thirty years. Central Asia may also head in a similar direction.
Is greed involved in this? Yes. In fact, I'm glad it is. Capitalism is the only system where greed can be harnessed as a good thing. It is an energy source more plentiful than sunlight, so why not harness it? If greedy men and women didn't exist, neither would today's economy.
I believe that you are dreaming in technicolour, when the reality is in black and white. If it is the US agenda to boldly pursue economic imperialism, there will be a growing resolve from other countries to put an end to it. You are basically supporting global confrontations of gigantic proportion. Just because the Cold War ended 10 years ago, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a "Hot War" tomorrow. I believe the US is too divided on this issue and that alone would call for rational second thought. The US can't even share the wealth with her own citizens, so how can you push a global policy that would in fact be ultimately detrimental to the newly acquired properties?

Greed will be the ruination of the carefully thought out plans of multi-millionaires who are bored with the everyday way of life. Using taxpayer dollars to fight global expansionism while the inner cores of your great cities suffer from economic disparity is the recipe for disaster IMHO.

So what? The core is (as far as I have understood, and I have not seen the map in question) the private sector of the western world. I don't care if it is on my behalf AND of the US, it is still imperialistic.

That India is biggest in numbers have nothing to do with their sucess. If that is what this professor has suggested I recomend him to do at least the basic years of primary school once again, he has some grave problems with the logics/mathematics.

Look at other colonial areas, Zimbabwe for example. But I guess that Zimbabwe is just a marked area on this map, as everything else that doesn't fit in with this theory.

Of course he is right in the long term about terrorism, but look at at this in short term, is this plan of military action anywhere near the word realistic? These countries won't just give themselves up to the west, even if the power is on our side. And what are the chances of America to get allies for this? Won't that lead to an American boicott by nonUS companies?
That's actually what he says is our biggest problem currently: a lack of articulation. If the US clearly stated that the goal of the Iraq war was to bring a republic to the country, and help transform the region, then I'm sure the world would rally behind us. But Bush never brought that up, and the WMD explanation was shaky at best, leading the world to believe that it was all about oil, as they had no other explanation.
BTW, he never said anything about British imperialism. I did. Many former British colonies are hellholes, but is there one French colony that resembles South Africa today? Or an Italian colony?
I had a very crude picture of the map, btw, on the first page somewhere, but a far more comprehensive one is in his book. Buy it. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to understand why wars in the 21st century will happen.

I believe that you are dreaming in technicolour, when the reality is in black and white. If it is the US agenda to boldly pursue economic imperialism, there will be a growing resolve from other countries to put an end to it. You are basically supporting global confrontations of gigantic proportion. Just because the Cold War ended 10 years ago, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a "Hot War" tomorrow. I believe the US is too divided on this issue and that alone would call for rational second thought. The US can't even share the wealth with her own citizens, so how can you push a global policy that would in fact be ultimately detrimental to the newly acquired properties?

Greed will be the ruination of the carefully thought out plans of multi-millionaires who are bored with the everyday way of life. Using taxpayer dollars to fight global expansionism while the inner cores of your great cities suffer from economic disparity is the recipe for disaster IMHO.
Who ever said that this was just US companies benefitting? This is a global economy. You can't drain one end of a pool, and expect just part of it to empty. The whole thing does. We rise and fall together.
He makes this especially clear in what I'd have to say is his most provocative arguement (but eerily true): our soldiers die for oil. But it is not our oil. In the course of the next twenty years, it'll overwhelmingly go to Asia, as their demand for oil increases, even as the rest of the core's demand shrinks. But this grows Asia's economy, and gives returns to its patron economies in Europe, Japan, and the US.
I do understand the take-care-of-our-nation-first arguement, but in this global society, it is outdated. Domestic and foreign policy are increasingly intertwined, as are domestic and foreign economies.

I really do recommend that people read the book. I haven't read the article, but I have doubts that it is comprehensive. The book is rather insightful, and does a better job explaining his position (and mine) than I do. In the mean time, here's this guy's web site. I visit his blog every day now.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/index.htm
On a side note, I want to say that I think that the opposition comes from the fact that Western society is so debellified. It has all but eliminated great power wars, which is a good thing, but I think that it borders on utter passifism sometimes.

The private sectors of not just the US, but the entire core benefit. Besides, the British in particular had very good results for their empire. Former British colonies tend to be better off today than even former French colonies. Look at India, which has the world's largest skilled workforce, and is the world's largest democracy. Or South Africa, whiich has one of Africa's most robust economies as the British invested so much in developing the area. The settler colonies especially turned out well.
I think this is what the author is saying here.
Yes, that essentially, imperialism, whether or not that is the label one applies to the policy, is good for the subjects in the long run. Maybe that has indeed been the case a few times in history. But I happen to be living during what would be the initial military phase of this particular project. Do I want to be a part of it? No.

Yes, that essentially, imperialism, whether or not that is the label one applies to the policy, is good for the subjects in the long run. Maybe that has indeed been the case a few times in history. But I happen to be living during what would be the initial military phase of this particular project. Do I want to be a part of it? No.
What part are you talking about? It'd be very good initially for investors and consumers. It'd be even better if you're a recipient in these gap nations, as was the case in Western Europe, Japan, and now China. It's not good for the US military, but hey, they're volunteers, anyhow. The only thing this will be bad for initially are those who seek to keep their nations in the dark ages.

bump

I imagine it might also be quite alarming for all those people for whom the "dark ages" have been good enough so far, and who fear abrupt change, particularly as their experience of it (coups, etc) may have been very negative. People who have adapted to their nation's status quo, learnt to live within the system, found an economic niche for themselves, raised a family, etc...then along comes an advanced military machine and starts dictating the restructuring of their world.

Maybe it's for the better, more than a century hence - as you said, India seems to have done OK out of it. But for those whose world is to be rebuilt, it will be pretty alarming. Can you imagine a technologically vastly superior civilization deciding to introduce Communism into the US, saying it will all pay off a few generations later? Taking a long view, maybe according to some set of metrics, improvements will be made.

But is it right? Is it our place to do this? If we are to embark upon this project, are we prepared to accept the possibility that not all experiments will be a success? That at some stage, somewhere, things will turn out wrong and our actions will result in genocide?

Reshaping the world of the bulk of the human population is a pretty unique responsibility, and as things stand, the West is not even close to being ready for it. As such ventures go, America's actions in Iraq are those of a child at play, breaking some new toy. Do you wish to see the whole world handed over to this? Which other nations do you suggest be sacrificed for experimental purposes?

As I said, this is not something of which I wish to be a part, as it is one thing to speak of results, quite another to be part of the bloody process of transition.

I imagine it might also be quite alarming for all those people for whom the "dark ages" have been good enough so far, and who fear abrupt change, particularly as their experience of it (coups, etc) may have been very negative. People who have adapted to their nation's status quo, learnt to live within the system, found an economic niche for themselves, raised a family, etc...then along comes an advanced military machine and starts dictating the restructuring of their world.

Maybe it's for the better, more than a century hence - as you said, India seems to have done OK out of it. But for those whose world is to be rebuilt, it will be pretty alarming. Can you imagine a technologically vastly superior civilization deciding to introduce Communism into the US, saying it will all pay off a few generations later? Taking a long view, maybe according to some set of metrics, improvements will be made.

But is it right? Is it our place to do this? If we are to embark upon this project, are we prepared to accept the possibility that not all experiments will be a success? That at some stage, somewhere, things will turn out wrong and our actions will result in genocide?

Reshaping the world of the bulk of the human population is a pretty unique responsibility, and as things stand, the West is not even close to being ready for it. As such ventures go, America's actions in Iraq are those of a child at play, breaking some new toy. Do you wish to see the whole world handed over to this? Which other nations do you suggest be sacrificed for experimental purposes?

As I said, this is not something of which I wish to be a part, as it is one thing to speak of results, quite another to be part of the bloody process of transition.
Our system is tried and true. Traditional monarchy worked well until the age of mass consumption. Communism could only spread as a dictatorship-like government. Systems based off indiividualism, however, seem to do especially good. It spread from the Anglo-American world to continental Europe and Japan, and now the former Soviet bloc, parts of South America, and nearly all of Asia. The West, and more specifically the core, has the financial, diplomatic, and miilitary resources to do this. After all, the core encompasses two out of every three people.
Of course, I've been on here long enough to know how pessimistic you are. I think you'd be perfectly happy living in a treehouse, reading such fairy tales as The Coming Nuclear War, and Leviathan.

Pretty much what the British, French and Spanish spent most of the last 400 years doing, with the exact same justification. "We're only doing this to help you...now open up your markets or else." It's imperialism, pure and simple, with all the racism that is implicit in such ventures.

Actually thats not true. The Spaniards and Portugese went exploring for economic reasons. Spices and silk were brought to Europe through the Ottoman empire and middlemen in Italy. Which made states like Genua and Venice unimaginable rich. Pepper was worth as much as gold.

It is not that I am a pessimist. It is that I do not believe pure optimism and idealism is rational. Whatever one tries, it is not going to turn out the way it is intended.

I say again, I do not believe that imposing this sort of radical change on cultures is desirable, or in any case feasible. This new imperialism, however it is packaged, does not have my support. I certainly would not want some external entity to dictate its culture to me, and I will assume that you wouldn't either.

I imagine it might also be quite alarming for all those people for whom the "dark ages" have been good enough so far, and who fear abrupt change, particularly as their experience of it (coups, etc) may have been very negative. People who have adapted to their nation's status quo, learnt to live within the system, found an economic niche for themselves, raised a family, etc...then along comes an advanced military machine and starts dictating the restructuring of their world.

Maybe it's for the better, more than a century hence - as you said, India seems to have done OK out of it. But for those whose world is to be rebuilt, it will be pretty alarming. Can you imagine a technologically vastly superior civilization deciding to introduce Communism into the US, saying it will all pay off a few generations later? Taking a long view, maybe according to some set of metrics, improvements will be made.

But is it right? Is it our place to do this? If we are to embark upon this project, are we prepared to accept the possibility that not all experiments will be a success? That at some stage, somewhere, things will turn out wrong and our actions will result in genocide?

Reshaping the world of the bulk of the human population is a pretty unique responsibility, and as things stand, the West is not even close to being ready for it. As such ventures go, America's actions in Iraq are those of a child at play, breaking some new toy. Do you wish to see the whole world handed over to this? Which other nations do you suggest be sacrificed for experimental purposes?

As I said, this is not something of which I wish to be a part, as it is one thing to speak of results, quite another to be part of the bloody process of transition.
While sugar plum fairies dance in Purly's dreams, you at least grasp the reality of such a brave (stupid?) new world order. For this imperialism to suceed, you would be looking at socialism at the least and more likely communism. If those were not met, then the world would break up into hundreds of millions revolting Iraqi style?

sugar plum fairies dance in Purly's dreams
:D :D :D

It is not that I am a pessimist. It is that I do not believe pure optimism and idealism is rational. Whatever one tries, it is not going to turn out the way it is intended.

I say again, I do not believe that imposing this sort of radical change on cultures is desirable, or in any case feasible. This new imperialism, however it is packaged, does not have my support. I certainly would not want some external entity to dictate its culture to me, and I will assume that you wouldn't either.
It is not an implementation of cultures, per se. All anyone really wants is a society to remain open and connected with the outside world. I do not see how globalization means the total destruction of many cultures. No one forces a culture to disappear, save for those practicing it.
And what's wrong with idealism? Sure, it's dangerous when radically applied, but any foreign policy needs a guidiing principle. Constantly maintaining the status quo in the world gets boring, and is ultimatly out of date. It certainly didn't work after the Napoleonic invasions, or WWI.

While sugar plum fairies dance in Purly's dreams, you at least grasp the reality of such a brave (stupid?) new world order. For this imperialism to suceed, you would be looking at socialism at the least and more likely communism. If those were not met, then the world would break up into hundreds of millions revolting Iraqi style?
What's stupid about it? It exists. The private sector, like it or not, is more important to most of us than any government. The only major public sector commodity is security, and the biggest exporter is the US. The basic of this philosophy is this: troops remove the bad leader and help provide security, rebuild, etc. The private sector does the vast majority of the work.

Perhaps I should explain it this way. There are four critical flows that help sustain globalization: oil from the Middle East/Central Asia to the core, people from the gap to the core, money from the core to the gap, and security from America to everywhere else. The first is important because it'll grow Asia (and will be substituted for natural gas from the same places in the old core), and sustain the global economic growth. The second is important as the core populations age. The third is important to develope economies. The fourth, however, is the predecessor. There used to be two major exporters of security, but now, only one is left.
We do not seek to destroy cultures, or have some racsist imperialist idea (for enemies of globalization come in all colors). But shrinking the gap will secure the core. Now, notice how there are very few conflicts within the core itself? Only one core nation, India, is involved in a major conflict within its own borders. By expanding the core, we come closer to what Emmanuel Kant prophecised: perpetual peace. Eventually, the Middle East, Central Asia, and probably SE Asia and Latin America will be all core nations. The only places left will be sub-Sahara Africa. It'll be the hardest challenge, but terrorists are already operating there. Why does the US have troops in Ethiopia and Djibouti?

bump

Why does the US have troops in Ethiopia and Djibouti?
Cause they let the geenie out of the bottle and now they can't get it back in.

Cause they let the geenie out of the bottle and now they can't get it back in.
And what does that mean?

And what does that mean?
They helped create the terrorists of today back then to fight the evil commies. And for some odd reason these guys don't take orders anymore from the great white father in Washington.

They helped create the terrorists of today back then to fight the evil commies. And for some odd reason these guys don't take orders anymore from the great white father in Washington.
Did we help create them? Yes. So did the Soviets. You see, this author rejects the chaos theory that was suppose to exist after the end of the Cold War, but I see it as being true. What terrorist would ever think of attacking the US or Russia during the Cold War? Now it is over, and they've attacked both very mercilessly. We've helped create them, but there are reasons why terrorists still exist. And they can't be solved just by talking to eachother.

but there are reasons why terrorists still exist.
Yes. The USA beeing one of them.

Yes. The USA beeing one of them.
Exactly. The US is the idealogical linchpin of capitalism, individualism, and connectivity, manifesting themselves as globalization in the past fifty years. Terrorists don't want any one of them, and we can't allow that. I can already tell you that the Muslims they claim to be defending would be better off in a globalized society.

I can already tell you that the Muslims they claim to be defending would be better off in a globalized society.
Thats just your opinion. Nothing more.

The only major public sector commodity is security, and the biggest exporter is the US.
LMAO.

Exactly.I can already tell you that the Muslims they claim to be defending would be better off in a globalized society.
I don't think Iraqis share your vision. That is why they are fighting tooth and nail for every inch of "their" land. You kill 60 Iraqis one day and there are 70 more taking their place the next day. Haven't you figured it out yet? They would rather die than be Americanized.

LMAO.
So, what do you find wrong with that? That the US is the largest net exporter of security, or that security will be the only public commodity that matters in the 21st century?

the US is the largest net exporter of security
I don't know about TG. But this is plain bull.

I don't think Iraqis share your vision. That is why they are fighting tooth and nail for every inch of "their" land. You kill 60 Iraqis one day and there are 70 more taking their place the next day. Haven't you figured it out yet? They would rather die than be Americanized.
Not just the Iraqi's.

I don't think Iraqis share your vision. That is why they are fighting tooth and nail for every inch of "their" land. You kill 60 Iraqis one day and there are 70 more taking their place the next day. Haven't you figured it out yet? They would rather die than be Americanized.
Globalization does not equal Americanization. In fact, globalization was a European creation going back to the 1800s. In many ways, the world was more connected then than it was through most of the 20th century. For example, they used the gold standard. Who uses anything tangible to back money nowadays?
I don't want to see a Middle East filled with McDonald's on every street corner, and Starbucks every other block. Rather, I want to see a Middle East that allows its society to be free. Where they can speak their minds, and own as much property as they can buy, with no silly limits like birthright, or party position. I want to see a Middle East connecting itself to the whole world. For these are inalienable rights we've all had since we were born. So many revolutions in not just Europe, but also in Asia and Latin America, have started to gain these rights. Many, unfortunatly, failed, but they had the right idea. The individual strives to be free, and anyone who really thinks otherwise, like Osama bin Laden, should see a pshrink.

I don't know about TG. But this is plain bull.
But let's suppose that the US never existed, but otherwise, the same exact global situation happened today. Some one else, say the EU or China, decided to pursue a foreign policy based on these idealogues I've been discussing. In principle, would you agree with it, even if you didn't like the nation itself?

But let's suppose that the US never existed, but otherwise, the same exact global situation happened today. Some one else, say the EU or China, decided to pursue a foreign policy based on these idealogues I've been discussing. In principle, would you agree with it, even if you didn't like the nation itself?
Could you rewrite that? And translate it into english? So I can understand what you are saying.

Could you rewrite that? And translate it into english? So I can understand what you are saying.
I was trying to remove the US from the equation, but since you can't understand that, I'll ask you in multiple questions.
Firstly, do you support individual self determination?

I was trying to remove the US from the equation, but since you can't understand that, I'll ask you in multiple questions.
Firstly, do you support individual self determination?
Both. (your English just sucks)
Go on.

Rather, I want to see a Middle East that allows its society to be free. Where they can speak their minds, and own as much property as they can buy, with no silly limits like birthright, or party position. I want to see a Middle East connecting itself to the whole world. For these are inalienable rights we've all had since we were born. So many revolutions in not just Europe, but also in Asia and Latin America, have started to gain these rights. Many, unfortunatly, failed, but they had the right idea. The individual strives to be free, and anyone who really thinks otherwise, like Osama bin Laden, should see a pshrink.
The American / Western concept of freedom is inextricably tied to its concept of individuality, with little or no ties or responsibility towards anyone outside a limited social circle, often being an individual's immediate family, sometimes not even that. In many other parts of the world, people belong, for lack of a better term, to a hive mind. Inalienable right to individual ownership of as much property as one can buy? These are YOUR values. The people you are currently trying to re-educate see these things as alien as communism or anarchy is to the average American. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. You assume that all people everywhere yearn for these same things, yet they will die killing you never understanding what you are talking about. There is no global monoculture, and there never will be. You seem to believe that the flawed concept of a monoculture means the same chain stores on every street, but it goes much further than that, freedom and individuality are not the same concepts everywhere.

Regarding the US exporting security...it is certainly the world's largest exporter of weapons. Perhaps you have the two confused. The US would export a whole lot more security if it learnt its place and ceased in its messianic efforts to reshape the world to hold its own values.

Both. (your English just sucks)
Go on.
Second, do you agree that a nation, group of nations, NGOs, or individuals should promote the cause for individual self determination?

You assume that all people everywhere yearn for these same things, yet they will die killing you never understanding what you are talking about.
With the exception of the dying/killing part, I often have the same problem with PE.

Second, do you agree that a nation, group of nations, NGOs, or individuals should promote the cause for individual self determination?
No.

The American / Western concept of freedom is inextricably tied to its concept of individuality, with little or no ties or responsibility towards anyone outside a limited social circle, often being an individual's immediate family, sometimes not even that. In many other parts of the world, people belong, for lack of a better term, to a hive mind. Inalienable right to individual ownership of as much property as one can buy? These are YOUR values. The people you are currently trying to re-educate see these things as alien as communism or anarchy is to the average American. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. You assume that all people everywhere yearn for these same things, yet they will die killing you never understanding what you are talking about. There is no global monoculture, and there never will be. You seem to believe that the flawed concept of a monoculture means the same chain stores on every street, but it goes much further than that, freedom and individuality are not the same concepts everywhere.
I firmly disagree. Your view stems from your pessimistic outlook on human nature. However, I am in complete awe of the prophecies John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and others made. Jefferson foretold of an "empire of liberty". Today, most of the world embraces this. There were people like you around during the Cold War, saying how liberty would never come to the Soviet bloc, East Asia, or Latin America. Yet most of their populations have. Liberty takes years, even decades to establish. But it can be done. In WWII, Japan and Germany were the most authoritarian and collective states on the planet, save the USSR. Look at how far they came in just twenty years after that.
Regarding the US exporting security...it is certainly the world's largest exporter of weapons. Perhaps you have the two confused. The US would export a whole lot more security if it learnt its place and ceased in its messianic efforts to reshape the world to hold its own values.
You're right. We need to be proactive in empowering the individual.

No.
Aha. So here's where we disagree. Why don't you think that individual self determination should be spread?

Aha. So here's where we disagree. Why don't you think that individual self determination should be spread?
Why should you spread it? What gives you the right to spread it? Who asked you to spread it?

Why should you spread it? What gives you the right to spread it? Who asked you to spread it?
No one did, but they'd be better off with these rights. They are inalienable to all humans. To deprive humans of them is just plain wrong. They make humans live to their potential, and those who want to keep some humans like this are really depriving the rest of the human community from their untapped potential. As we've seen, they may end up revolting, or they may not. But a Briton in 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed, was far worse off than a Briton today. Before you say anything about technology and whatnot, if you've noticed, most cultural, economical, and technological innovations come from free societies than not free societies. What major innovation other than communism came from the USSR? Compare that to Britain's innovation of just the last ten years.

I wonder then, how many casualties, military and civilian, the US is prepared to accept as the price of bringing freedom to people whose idea of freedom is fundamentally different. Per 1m foreigners converted to the two-party two-house corporate-sponsored political system, how many of its soldiers and civilians is the US prepared to lose? What is the threshold at which this policy becomes a bad investment? You can't be an entrepreneur without business plan, you know. One would hope that someone somewhere is ging to work out rough numbers before committing the western world to this.

No one did.
Thats all what matters. Not your poor attempt of justification for US imperialism.

What major innovation other than communism came from the USSR? Compare that to Britain's innovation of just the last ten years.
Much of cutting edge mathematics research, for starters. While the UK has given the world internet banking and outsourced call centres.

I wonder then, how many casualties, military and civilian, the US is prepared to accept as the price of bringing freedom to people whose idea of freedom is fundamentally different. Per 1m foreigners converted to the two-party two-house corporate-sponsored political system, how many of its soldiers and civilians is the US prepared to lose? What is the threshold at which this policy becomes a bad investment? You can't be an entrepreneur without business plan, you know. One would hope that someone somewhere is ging to work out rough numbers before committing the western world to this.
It'll cost whatever it takes. In terms of finances, it's no problem, as they ultimatly become investments for the future. In terms of military, it'd be justified if it were an all volunteer army. I'd be the first to sign up for one, and I really do hope that, one day, I may be physically capable of joining ROTC. I have a few disabilities, you see, so I'm wondering if I can join, but would love to do it. In any case, this is the best way to keep a fight for ideals that 2/3s of the population share from turning into a fight for purely ulterior motives. The biggest problem, in fact, is the lack of articulation. I feel that the Bush Administration is doing a lot to promote individualism, but isn't articulating it well. If it were better articulated, it'd be more widely accepted.

Thats all what matters. Not your poor attempt of justification for US imperialism.
But it is not a matter of permission. Someone has to have the authority to grant permission arbitrarily, by using that logic. I feel that in this world, nations have to make up their own damn minds. As the individual has these rights, it is someone's moral responsibility to ensure them. And that someone has to be the strongest entity physically, currently being the US.

But it is not a matter of permission. Someone has to have the authority to grant permission arbitrarily, by using that logic. I feel that in this world, nations have to make up their own damn minds. As the individual has these rights, it is someone's moral responsibility to ensure them. And that someone has to be the strongest entity physically, currently being the US.
The US doesn't have the right to take this kind of authority. But it's ok. It just makes people hate America more and more. :D

Much of cutting edge mathematics research, for starters.
Okay, I concede that. They also did a lot for cosmology, physics, and other scientific fields. But for one, it was all weapons related, and for another, that science was limited in volume.
While the UK has given the world internet banking and outsourced call centres.
You forget quite a bit, like, oh, Steven Hawking? Or the never-ending British invasion of America?

Well, one would hope that the powers-that-be properly explain your reasons for being there if they send you off somewhere. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that individuality, freedom, etc only make sense if you know what people are talking about. If a bunch of soldiers turned up in the US extolling the virtues of Shiite theocracy and exchanging individuality in favour of the superior emotional well-being offered by a hive mind, you can probably guess how long the average American would spend considering the nature of what is on offer before pulling out a gun and becoming an insurgent. I don't have any great urge to end up being the salesman, and I'd advise caution on anyone's part before enthusiastically embracing the idea of exporting cultural change by force of arms.

The US doesn't have the right to take this kind of authority. But it's ok. It just makes people hate America more and more. :D
If they hate us for the purpose of spreading liberty and individual self determination, so be it. 500 years of political theory can be thrown out the window, and we can sink into a state of absolute collectivism that is a cross between Stalin's USSR and the Roman Empire: hundreds of controll freaks, each with their own little country, and each trying to kill the other. That is what the world will be like if people hate liberty.

Well, one would hope that the powers-that-be properly explain your reasons for being there if they send you off somewhere. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that individuality, freedom, etc only make sense if you know what people are talking about. If a bunch of soldiers turned up in the US extolling the virtues of Shiite theocracy and exchanging individuality in favour of the superior emotional well-being offered by a hive mind, you can probably guess how long the average American would spend considering the nature of what is on offer before pulling out a gun and becoming an insurgent. I don't have any great urge to end up being the salesman, and I'd advise caution on anyone's part before enthusiastically embracing the idea of exporting cultural change by force of arms.
Perhaps it is happening now, but it really shouldn't. The US military should stick to two main jobs. One is to remove a leader violating these natural rights. The other is to help the locals maintain the peace. Partly because of Bush, and partly because our military is more war fighting than peace enforcing, we are having trouble in Iraq. But I still have hope that we will succeed there. The US has succeeded in some very difficult situations before.

But what if these "natural rights" are hubris? A product of our civilisation, arrogantly held by us to be exemplary, but ultimately inapplicable elsewhere? One thing's for sure, there will be pretty brutal resistance to any policy of cultural change by force. Such things have been tried in the past, by people with all sorts of values, the world keeps spinning, but bloodbaths end up littering history.

If they hate us for the purpose of spreading liberty and individual self determination, so be it. 500 years of political theory can be thrown out the window, and we can sink into a state of absolute collectivism that is a cross between Stalin's USSR and the Roman Empire: hundreds of controll freaks, each with their own little country, and each trying to kill the other. That is what the world will be like if people hate liberty.
So hating the US is the same as hating freedom huh? LMAO :D

The American / Western concept of freedom is inextricably tied to its concept of individuality, with little or no ties or responsibility towards anyone outside a limited social circle, often being an individual's immediate family, sometimes not even that. In many other parts of the world, people belong, for lack of a better term, to a hive mind. Inalienable right to individual ownership of as much property as one can buy? These are YOUR values. The people you are currently trying to re-educate see these things as alien as communism or anarchy is to the average American. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. You assume that all people everywhere yearn for these same things, yet they will die killing you never understanding what you are talking about. There is no global monoculture, and there never will be. You seem to believe that the flawed concept of a monoculture means the same chain stores on every street, but it goes much further than that, freedom and individuality are not the same concepts everywhere.

Regarding the US exporting security...it is certainly the world's largest exporter of weapons. Perhaps you have the two confused. The US would export a whole lot more security if it learnt its place and ceased in its messianic efforts to reshape the world to hold its own values.
TG, I agree with you 100% and I have stated similar comment earlier in this regard. These people just don't want American style "freedom". Look at Afghanistan when the Russians were trying to exert their "will" on those people. The Russians were repelled and over time, the US will be repelled. These people are not only willing to give up their lives to protect their way of life, they are also willing to destroy anyone or anything that would embrace these intruders upon their lands. They will even destroy the oil in the ground to prevent their captors from enjoying the benefits of "their" oil.

You are also bang on with the American concept of individuality, and it has been painfully portrayed on these boards. The I am ok Jack, too bad about you attitude is appalling for such a rich country. The biggest problem is that the rich control most of the "American Dream", and a few others get the crumbs. So often I have heard the words....."I am not responsible" in regards to those living in poverty or stuck in a rut. The other words that hit home hard..."It is my money, I worked hard for it". There are many other cultural, and societal problems that plague America, and that is why I cannot imagine that the "freedom" package that they are offering to Iraqis and Afghans as being a marketable "product" to those people. Where is the tolerance? There is nothing but death and destruction, and the sooner that man wakes up, the better.

Purly.....time to put away the American expanionist books and start studying the humanist side of life?

What major innovation other than communism came from the USSR? Compare that to Britain's innovation of just the last ten years.

Not much, with the minor exception of the first manmade orbital satellite in the history of the world... (That's Sputnik, for those of you who don't know)

Which shocked the United States into gear, whereupon we brought our massive resources to bear and won the space race because we just had way more resources than they did- and they were still neck in neck with us, pretty much up until communism collapsed and they suddenly realized they didn't have any money...

Or their way of making things work, and be easy to fix when they didn't (we spent millions designing a pen that would write in zero gravity; they used pencils). Or my dad tells me stories about when he was in the army- when a commandeered Russian vehicle broke down, they could send it down to the local garage and have it fixed for a few bucks. But when an American transmission blew, it's back to Chicago to have it replaced.

Not to mention the AK-47, the single most popular rifle in the history of ever- at the same time as American bureaucracy was turning the M16 into the most unreliable...

Don't sell ze Russians short, man. They did good work.

Not much, with the minor exception of the first manmade orbital satellite in the history of the world... (That's Sputnik, for those of you who don't know)

Which shocked the United States into gear, whereupon we brought our massive resources to bear and won the space race because we just had way more resources than they did- and they were still neck in neck with us, pretty much up until communism collapsed and they suddenly realized they didn't have any money...

Or their way of making things work, and be easy to fix when they didn't (we spent millions designing a pen that would write in zero gravity; they used pencils). Or my dad tells me stories about when he was in the army- when a commandeered Russian vehicle broke down, they could send it down to the local garage and have it fixed for a few bucks. But when an American transmission blew, it's back to Chicago to have it replaced.

Not to mention the AK-47, the single most popular rifle in the history of ever- at the same time as American bureaucracy was turning the M16 into the most unreliable...

Don't sell ze Russians short, man. They did good work.
Also, not to sell the Russians short, just think about how much death and destruction occurred during WW2. How far along would the USA have been, if there had been a similar occurrence of death and destruction on US soil?

I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Not only will it improve the world, but it'll enrich the rest of the core. In the long run, it'll eliminate conditions that breed terrorism, as well as help promote individual liberty, develope this gap, and help to bring about Emmanuel Kant's "perpetual peace". Dr. Barnett, btw, is a liberal.

Okay. Sure. I've read this whole thread now and you've absolutely convinced me that this is a great idea. But before we start marching over to "the gap" and dragging muslim women out of their homes, throwing off their burquas, shoving the latest issue of Cosmo in their hands, sending them to the malls and telling them now they have to look like JLo, I have but one condition:

First, the U.S. needs to clean up our own country. I would like some of this peace, security and stability you are in favor of exporting to actually be a reality here in this country first. It's kind of difficult to sell this individual liberty when we have so much homelessness, poverty, violence, addiction and ignorance here in the U.S.

But what if these "natural rights" are hubris? A product of our civilisation, arrogantly held by us to be exemplary, but ultimately inapplicable elsewhere? One thing's for sure, there will be pretty brutal resistance to any policy of cultural change by force. Such things have been tried in the past, by people with all sorts of values, the world keeps spinning, but bloodbaths end up littering history.
These ideas of individualism have exploded very rapidly in terms of the world's history. Fifty years is but a blink of an eye in the history of the planet, but it is arguably the most important for many reasons. One important one that was a driving concept was the rise of individualism and a liberal government backing it. It began as a trickle from the Anglo-American world, and was nearly wiped away in the hell of WWII. It not only survived, but it exploded. It first expanded to "the West", plus Japan. But ever since the 1980s, it's been growing rapidly. China first embraced the free markets, but is now having to embrace a stable legal system, and the rule of law. It'll be a democracy within a generation. Singapore also had free markets first, and is still a dictatorship, but rapidly democratizing. South Korea was like that, too.
All one has to do is look around. Brazil, and a few other countries in Latin America embrace these ideas. South Africa has done a lot to reform its markets and government, especially by ending apartheid. The interesting thing is that an ideaology of extreme collectivism has existed in all these places, especially Asia. Confucianism emphasized undying loyalty to the family and the state, and branded merchants as lowly. That didn't stop them. Even more ironically, the Middle East has the best tradition for democracy, as it had a well-developed market economy fifty years ago.
Resistance to these ideas will always exist, but only from gang-like organizations. Their leaders are those that want a "winner take all" strategy, and benefit from their collective societies. Their foot soldiers are simply those ignorant enough, or just unlucky enough to be brainwashed by these gang leaders. But I can already tell you that while 1,000 or so people benefitted from Stalin or Hitler's regime greatly, everyone bennfits in Russia and Germany's systems today, even if it may not seem that way under Putin. In sum, these ideas appeal to everyone, and their main opposition comes from gangs and criminals.
*Edit*
Before you ask, no I am not making an attack on the Russian people. Considering the circumstances, they did amazingly well for themselves. I'm criticizing their illiberal regime that stiffled debate, controlled their culture, and monitored their thoughts every chance they got. This stiffles innovation of any sort. Had the USSR been a liberal democracy, we'd have an economic powerhouse, a cultural engine, and a center of free thought, on top of being a military power.

Also, not to sell the Russians short, just think about how much death and destruction occurred during WW2. How far along would the USA have been, if there had been a similar occurrence of death and destruction on US soil?
Germany was also greatly destroyed in WWII. In fact, the destruction there was probably worse than anywhere else. Did that stop the Germans from later becoming the world's economic pillar? Or Japan? The difference is that, to some degree or another, they embraced individualism and the liberal theory of government (which go hand-in-hand). The USSR did not have a cutting-edge economy. It produced artists and writers, but they were all surpressed. Did an intellectual movement happen in the USSR, that wasn't related to Marxism? What about in other societies?

Okay. Sure. I've read this whole thread now and you've absolutely convinced me that this is a great idea. But before we start marching over to "the gap" and dragging muslim women out of their homes, throwing off their burquas, shoving the latest issue of Cosmo in their hands, sending them to the malls and telling them now they have to look like JLo, I have but one condition:
So I'm that bad a salesman?
First, the U.S. needs to clean up our own country. I would like some of this peace, security and stability you are in favor of exporting to actually be a reality here in this country first. It's kind of difficult to sell this individual liberty when we have so much homelessness, poverty, violence, addiction and ignorance here in the U.S.
This is a global society. Half of the problems you describe are economical, and probably the rest stem from economic problems (especially ignorance). They can be solved primarily if market societies expand, and thus, the economy is more active. How do I know this? Let's go back to 1900, when the US economy expanded to a national level, and not a state-by-state one. Poverty and homelessness now can never hope to hold a candle to those of today, and overall living standards were miserable. People got so little schooling, that the assumption was that bathing was bad for you. Not just unnecessary, but bad for you. Can you think of one educated person that thinks that today? And don't play the "they were ignorant" card. The ancient Romans were mostly schooled, and even the poor attended bathhouses every day.
In

So hating the US is the same as hating freedom huh? LMAO :D
Of course not. In fact, the most desirable thing is if much of the world went into a spontaneous revolution, overthrew their governments, and established a secure, liberal democracy. The US would get all of the same benefits, but wouldn't have to spend its blood and treasure.

bump

So, no one shares our vision here?

bump

bump

So, no one shares our vision here?
No. The US is the source of all evil.

No. The US is the source of all evil.
You just say that because you're so far to the right that you can't reason at all. Endoscopia is like that, too. Why don't you two form a club?

You just say that because you're so far to the right that you can't reason at all.

Far to the right? Aren't anti americans all commie pinko tree huggers.
Endoscopia is like that, too. Why don't you two form a club?
He's pro American. Wouldn't work.

Far to the right? Aren't anti americans all commie pinko tree huggers.

Not really. Some simply need a reason to hate someone. Others, like a small minority in Europe, tend to be xenophobic. Then there's al-Qaeda. They are not tree hugging commies, now are they?

bump

bump

Desparate. Aren't you?

Desparate. Aren't you?
No. What makes you think that?

No. What makes you think that?
So many Bumps.

So many Bumps.
No, that's just a bad habit I have. I do that with nearly all of my threads. The mods probably hate me for this, but if they do, I have only myself to blame.

bump