ya at this rate it is, we need to kill all the republicans first, then we won't have a problem implementing alternative energy fast.
Alternative US Foreign Policy
- Thread starter hypewaders
- Start date
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
"3. Would we want to voluntarily significantly reduce our military power?"
And why would we want to do that?? The only country reducing their military power is the Russians and thats because they cant afford it. But even they are attempting to re-amp things.
I presume your reasoning is : "If we had a small Military we wouldnt be attacking other countries."
And why would we want to do that?? The only country reducing their military power is the Russians and thats because they cant afford it. But even they are attempting to re-amp things.
I presume your reasoning is : "If we had a small Military we wouldnt be attacking other countries."
No I think we should reduce are military power, change it from a cold war fight force to a smaller anti-terrarium military.
Looking for alternatives from Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry is distinctly unsatisfying.
Here's an example of Kerry's thinking from a recent interview:
In his campaign website, Kerry murkily communicates that the best response to the Iraq debacle is to dress it up in internationalism, but stillstay the course at all cost:
In other words, slap a facade of international cooperation over the old facade of international cooperation. The Democratic Party utterly lacks the courage of conviction, even as US public opinion is tilting away from unquestioning faith in the Bush Administration's crusade for a pro-American Mideast. Now is the time for a difficult but inevitable debate within the United States about our place in the world. If Democrats continue to recoil from confronting this debate, they will become so boxed in by their cowardly campaign rhetoric that the neoconservative track will effectively disappear in the same straight, fateful line toward disaster, regardless which party is victorious in November.
I think that Kerry has lost much courage and clarity in his years within the beltway. Compare today's Kerry with :John Kerry at 28:
One tour of duty on the Mekong once compelled Kerry to join the debate about the character of America in our relationship with the world. 20 Years in Washington have apparently changed him into a man who recoils from the core of that debate. American democracy is in need of a candidate who will take a stand against the hubris of American neoimperialism, which is rapidly compromising our international legitimacy and security. The hard lessons of current events now have prepared a majority of Americans to reconsider our national course, but the Democratic party and John Kerry are failing to lead.
Here's an example of Kerry's thinking from a recent interview:
In his campaign website, Kerry murkily communicates that the best response to the Iraq debacle is to dress it up in internationalism, but stillstay the course at all cost:
In other words, slap a facade of international cooperation over the old facade of international cooperation. The Democratic Party utterly lacks the courage of conviction, even as US public opinion is tilting away from unquestioning faith in the Bush Administration's crusade for a pro-American Mideast. Now is the time for a difficult but inevitable debate within the United States about our place in the world. If Democrats continue to recoil from confronting this debate, they will become so boxed in by their cowardly campaign rhetoric that the neoconservative track will effectively disappear in the same straight, fateful line toward disaster, regardless which party is victorious in November.
I think that Kerry has lost much courage and clarity in his years within the beltway. Compare today's Kerry with :John Kerry at 28:
One tour of duty on the Mekong once compelled Kerry to join the debate about the character of America in our relationship with the world. 20 Years in Washington have apparently changed him into a man who recoils from the core of that debate. American democracy is in need of a candidate who will take a stand against the hubris of American neoimperialism, which is rapidly compromising our international legitimacy and security. The hard lessons of current events now have prepared a majority of Americans to reconsider our national course, but the Democratic party and John Kerry are failing to lead.
And why would we want to do that?? The only country reducing their military power is the Russians and thats because they cant afford it. But even they are attempting to re-amp things.
:bugeye: This is not even close to the truth, almost all major nations have reduced their forces big time, from China, to Russia, to the UK. The military industrial complex of the Cold War is just not sustainable. The Peace dividend , Russia and China decreasing their forces is actually making them stronger not weaker.
I presume your reasoning is : "If we had a small Military we wouldnt be attacking other countries."
Even Donald Rumsfeld wants a smaller military, smaller hi-tech militaries are the wave of the future. Numbers now are nothing more then that, tech is the important part.
:bugeye: This is not even close to the truth, almost all major nations have reduced their forces big time, from China, to Russia, to the UK. The military industrial complex of the Cold War is just not sustainable. The Peace dividend , Russia and China decreasing their forces is actually making them stronger not weaker.
I presume your reasoning is : "If we had a small Military we wouldnt be attacking other countries."
Even Donald Rumsfeld wants a smaller military, smaller hi-tech militaries are the wave of the future. Numbers now are nothing more then that, tech is the important part.
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
1st of all- this smaller hi-tech military is CRAP. Maybe im biased being that im in the Military but you have to have TROOPS on the ground. All of these new light weight vehicles like the Stryker are nothing but coffins. Rumsfield wants fast, light deployable divisions so we can hop around and play daddy to the world. Thats all great and dandy in 3rd world countries but it will not do us a damn bit of good in a major conflict. When an RPG can take out your heaviest equipment there is a problem.
Eventually, as in the FUTURE, we will have equipment that can handle this type of problem. However, that is not now. Until we have this technology forget it.
And China is not decreasing their forces. Their Military Budget is increasing every year. Plus they are buying russian ships, subs, etc..etc..
Eventually, as in the FUTURE, we will have equipment that can handle this type of problem. However, that is not now. Until we have this technology forget it.
And China is not decreasing their forces. Their Military Budget is increasing every year. Plus they are buying russian ships, subs, etc..etc..
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
just a quick worthless statistic: China spends a higher % of its GDP on the Military than the US 
And China is not decreasing their forces. Their Military Budget is increasing every year. Plus they are buying russian ships, subs, etc..etc..
So? This does not mean that the overall size of the Chinese military is growing. The Chinese military since the late 80's have gone from 3 million men to now 2 million and it's still decreasing. China's AF is decreasing in size etc. China was a paper tiger, and the increase in Chinese military spending is obvious. She is buying much more expensive and hi-tech toys from Russia and if France has her way, France too. China is smaller today then it was 15 years ago, but it is more powerful. Per Capita the US spent $1,035/capita, and in China $32. So obviously the US is more militaristic then the Chinese.
So? This does not mean that the overall size of the Chinese military is growing. The Chinese military since the late 80's have gone from 3 million men to now 2 million and it's still decreasing. China's AF is decreasing in size etc. China was a paper tiger, and the increase in Chinese military spending is obvious. She is buying much more expensive and hi-tech toys from Russia and if France has her way, France too. China is smaller today then it was 15 years ago, but it is more powerful. Per Capita the US spent $1,035/capita, and in China $32. So obviously the US is more militaristic then the Chinese.
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
"Per Capita the US spent $1,035/capita, and in China $32. So obviously the US is more militaristic then the Chinese."
Per capita Being that the Chinese have 4 times that people than we do lets bump it up to $128 to be a fair. Then lets compare that to their average income and their GDP.
You tried to pull this same statistic nonsense before on socialism. Just because we spend a greater dollar amount doesnt mean that we are 'more' socialist or 'more' Militaristic. It just means that we have higher costs. Once again, the % of GDP is more effective.
Using your example:
Country A has $100 Million in income for the year. They spend all of it on the Military. Every DIME they have they spend on the MIlitary.
Country B: has $100 Billion in income and they spend $120 million on the Military. Country A: 100% on the Military
Country B: about .0012 % on the Military
According to you Country B is more Militaristic even though country A spends everything it has on the Military. That is a misleading usage of statistics.
Per capita
Being that the Chinese have 4 times that people than we do lets bump it up to $128 to be a fair. Then lets compare that to their average income and their GDP. You tried to pull this same statistic nonsense before on socialism. Just because we spend a greater dollar amount doesnt mean that we are 'more' socialist or 'more' Militaristic. It just means that we have higher costs. Once again, the % of GDP is more effective.
Using your example:
Country A has $100 Million in income for the year. They spend all of it on the Military. Every DIME they have they spend on the MIlitary.
Country B: has $100 Billion in income and they spend $120 million on the Military. Country A: 100% on the Military
Country B: about .0012 % on the Military
According to you Country B is more Militaristic even though country A spends everything it has on the Military. That is a misleading usage of statistics.
Per capita Being that the Chinese have 4 times that people than we do lets bump it up to $128 to be a fair. Then lets compare that to their average income and their GDP.
Ok let's be fair shall we? Let's make the population of the US and China the same:
Population (USA & China): 290 million
Defence budget: USA - $466 billion
China- $67 billion
Per Capita- USA: $1606
China: $231
I was being fair, was I not?
It just means that we have higher costs. Once again, the % of GDP is more effective.
Ok fine if you want it, according to the UN HDI:
Military expenditure (as % of GDP) [2001]:
USA-3.1
China- 2.3
If we were to take gross numbers, the US will spend $466 billion is year and China $65 billion. The US in 1999 spent $276 billion, if that is not a militaristic jump beyond the pale I don't what is?
Edit: To be even more fair let me do this:
BUD MAN: is the annual cost per man for armed forces in dollars. This is an excellent indicator of the quantity and, to a lesser extent, the quality of weapons and equipment.
( I believe 2002 #'s)
USA: $243
China: $19
So to be fair let's take away these #'s from the ones before:
USA- $1,035 - $243 = $792
China- $32 - $19 = $13.
It becomes painfully apparent even to the most casual of observes that the Chinese spend more money just keeping their men around then they do for other things like acquisitions etc. The Americans blow them out of the war.
If we are to be fair let's put those #'s in percentages:
USA- 76% of the taxpayer’s money goes to things other then paying their soldiers.
China- 40%...
Thanks that was fun.
Being that the Chinese have 4 times that people than we do lets bump it up to $128 to be a fair. Then lets compare that to their average income and their GDP. Ok let's be fair shall we? Let's make the population of the US and China the same:
Population (USA & China): 290 million
Defence budget: USA - $466 billion
China- $67 billion
Per Capita- USA: $1606
China: $231
I was being fair, was I not?
It just means that we have higher costs. Once again, the % of GDP is more effective.
Ok fine if you want it, according to the UN HDI:
Military expenditure (as % of GDP) [2001]:
USA-3.1
China- 2.3
If we were to take gross numbers, the US will spend $466 billion is year and China $65 billion. The US in 1999 spent $276 billion, if that is not a militaristic jump beyond the pale I don't what is?
Edit: To be even more fair let me do this:
BUD MAN: is the annual cost per man for armed forces in dollars. This is an excellent indicator of the quantity and, to a lesser extent, the quality of weapons and equipment.
( I believe 2002 #'s)
USA: $243
China: $19
So to be fair let's take away these #'s from the ones before:
USA- $1,035 - $243 = $792
China- $32 - $19 = $13.
It becomes painfully apparent even to the most casual of observes that the Chinese spend more money just keeping their men around then they do for other things like acquisitions etc. The Americans blow them out of the war.
If we are to be fair let's put those #'s in percentages:
USA- 76% of the taxpayer’s money goes to things other then paying their soldiers.
China- 40%...
Thanks that was fun.
Last edited:
(returning to Alternative US foreign Policy)
Gifted recently brought up a link in another thread that was closed for lacking content, but the link touched on something that I am hoping may stimulate some topical thoughts here.
Coverage of the Richard Reid trial may have been most influenced by the Judge's most flag-waving rhetoric (for example see CNN). But during his sentencing speech, Judge Young something that I think is almost entirely missing in the way Americans are responding to terrorism in the wake of 9-11 and the Bush Administration's leadership.
Judge Young:
The Judge's comments were surely not intended as criticism of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, if terrorists are not, as he said, soldiers, but instead common criminals (increasingly common criminals, sadly), then apprehending them through armed conflict, as opposed to police efforts, is clearly the wrong approach. If the United States were to pursue all fugitives with our armed forces, the misapplication of force would be clear, as well as highly disruptive and unsustainable.
If Americans wish to truly be safer under the threat of terrorism, they must insist that their government pursue international terrorists the same ways that other criminals are identified, sought, and apprehended. If police efforts and international cooperation are lacking, then efforts must be made to improve on those processes, rather than abandoning and undermining them in warfare.
Gifted recently brought up a link in another thread that was closed for lacking content, but the link touched on something that I am hoping may stimulate some topical thoughts here.
Coverage of the Richard Reid trial may have been most influenced by the Judge's most flag-waving rhetoric (for example see CNN). But during his sentencing speech, Judge Young something that I think is almost entirely missing in the way Americans are responding to terrorism in the wake of 9-11 and the Bush Administration's leadership.
Judge Young:
Gifted's source
The Judge's comments were surely not intended as criticism of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, if terrorists are not, as he said, soldiers, but instead common criminals (increasingly common criminals, sadly), then apprehending them through armed conflict, as opposed to police efforts, is clearly the wrong approach. If the United States were to pursue all fugitives with our armed forces, the misapplication of force would be clear, as well as highly disruptive and unsustainable.
If Americans wish to truly be safer under the threat of terrorism, they must insist that their government pursue international terrorists the same ways that other criminals are identified, sought, and apprehended. If police efforts and international cooperation are lacking, then efforts must be made to improve on those processes, rather than abandoning and undermining them in warfare.
I would say that the judges comments are in agreement with current US policy and the Bush admin. I also don’t think that the judge was putting Reid in the “common criminal” or “common fugitive” category when he said “you’re a terrorist”. The judge, Bush, and his policy are creating a NEW type of criminal called “Terrorist”. Terrorists are not enemy combatants nor are they soldiers. This “new” type of criminal is not (yet) protected by any international laws. The US alone will determine what “justice” is appropriate: “We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.” How convenient. The label “terrorist” is associated with 9/11, evil, etc.. “War on Terrorism” = “War on evil”. How can anyone be against that?
Bush tries to distinguish “enemy” and “terrorist”. Sure America has enemies but so what? “Enemies” of America are not new. “Enemies” just disagree with American policies and/or are antidemocratic. Not all enemies are evil. “Enemies” don’t kill Americans. Terrorists do. Bush is trying to polarize the world - -America vs the terrorists (evil).
The first step in improving the foreign policy is realizing and accepting that terrorists are enemies. And we must “negotiate” “treat” and “sign document” with terrorists (- because they are an affective enemy).
Bush tries to distinguish “enemy” and “terrorist”. Sure America has enemies but so what? “Enemies” of America are not new. “Enemies” just disagree with American policies and/or are antidemocratic. Not all enemies are evil. “Enemies” don’t kill Americans. Terrorists do. Bush is trying to polarize the world - -America vs the terrorists (evil).
The first step in improving the foreign policy is realizing and accepting that terrorists are enemies. And we must “negotiate” “treat” and “sign document” with terrorists (- because they are an affective enemy).
Dealing with terrorists though is very difficult, it’s not easy. We must understand that these people are not states; they don’t have anything to lose. As we all know that losing their lives is nothing big, frankly that is preferable. A dialogue should open up with organizations; yes there should be some form of communication. But I don’t think that negotiations with these groups are going to accomplish much. Terrorism is so effective in its measures that states go bonkers and lose all rational sensibility. Modern Terrorism is very effective as well, not because what he terrorists do is damaging. No rather modern terrorism is effective because the states they attack usually go hyper-militaristic, and end up bankrupt fighting an invisible enemy. Israel can’t sustain itself, and should collapse within due course, the US is spending trillions against an enemy who has less then 10,000 members in her ranks. What Israel, the US, Russia, etc. aren’t understanding is that terrorism is not an action; it’s a state of mind. When people are being invaded, bombed, and marginalized by a big power, do we actually expect them to sit back and allow them to be psychologically raped? I always laugh when I hear “them” say that they will defeat terrorism. You aren’t going to defeat anything but your budgets, and social programs at home. Terrorism is VERY difficult to deal with, and the more you try to kill it the worse it gets. I use the analogy of “not to pick on your scabs”, didn’t your mother tell you?
There's nothing we can do to self-generate a genuine sense of humility, compassion and moderation in our dealings with the rest of the world. Not and keep our current way of life intact, anyway. But I see the actions of the people fighting us as very similar to our actions in fighting the Soviets. We basically exausted their economy in an arms race, accelerating a probably inevitable decline by several decades. Those fighting us today are slowly but surely provoking us into exhausting our own economy by trying to hunt mosquitos with shotguns while we wreck our standing with the rest of the world and eviscerate our constitution. Once our economy and political system collapses and we endure a generation or two of comparative suffering, than maybe we will be ready to walk a new path.
heh i dont care how turks feel about US I really dont my vote expresses how I feel about US policy not them. I dont have to satisfy them or bow to their "world opinion" its their opinion not mine and they dont vote I do... In the end we the ones who vote are the persons who have to deal with whom we elect not them. And No I ain going to elect a super liar and all politicians are liars but Kerry has really outlied himself. Bush lowered taxes a bit and he promised to continue thats enough for me but Kerry only lied switched sides and lied some more. Maybe you dont like Bushs views fine but at least he tries to follow things he believes in and some other people do as well.
Extreme arrogance is nicely showed by all nation states its just we here in US have developed the best marketing network for showing off thats why it feels that way. And hell I dont care if someone percieves me as arrogant thats their view and they can feel it as much as they want but my action will not be guided by "their expectation of how i should act" scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons.
Extreme arrogance is nicely showed by all nation states its just we here in US have developed the best marketing network for showing off thats why it feels that way. And hell I dont care if someone percieves me as arrogant thats their view and they can feel it as much as they want but my action will not be guided by "their expectation of how i should act" scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons.
Well, there you have it Hypewaders in a nutshell -
As Eluminate said with such eloquence, impeccable grammar and spelling:
1. We don't care what other nations think nor do we have to be concerned about them in any way whatsoever
2. Everybody is equally craven, we're just being the most up front about it
3. All politicians are liars, but Bush is a godfearing man and if he lies it's in our best interests so it's okay
4. If you don't watch your step you'll be lumped in with "some other morons".
Eluminate speaks for at least a third to a half of the population of the United States. In the face of that, where do you think we're going to be able to go?
As Eluminate said with such eloquence, impeccable grammar and spelling:
1. We don't care what other nations think nor do we have to be concerned about them in any way whatsoever
2. Everybody is equally craven, we're just being the most up front about it
3. All politicians are liars, but Bush is a godfearing man and if he lies it's in our best interests so it's okay
4. If you don't watch your step you'll be lumped in with "some other morons".
Eluminate speaks for at least a third to a half of the population of the United States. In the face of that, where do you think we're going to be able to go?
Down. But before that, there's some time to reflect, and Eluminate is a representative voice of presently prominent American opinion.
"heh i dont care"
Spoken like a stereotypical "imperialist", Eluminate. But nationalistic empire not viable today, as in centuries past. The world is changing faster each generation, and now does not react in the same ways. The world economy is no longer the relatively empty canvas as it was during the progressively shorter arcs of empires. now, it's spontaneously and irreversibly integrating.
Once soldiers were the most frequent mass border-crossers, but they have been surpassed by millions of civilians who live, work, and have close friends and relatives worldwide, and who even hold multiple citizenships. This may seem diabolical to someone averse to watching the world outside creep in, but the all-permeating process is in irreversible motion.
Watch as Israel walls herself in, and decide if America should do the same- the only society that will be able to even temporarily withstand the accelerating mingling of humanity will be a fortress state forever at mortal odds with the surrounding world: Hardly the "Sweet Land of Liberty".
As a pragmatist, you might consider surrendering more allegiance to the most powerful corporations, with all heart and soul: After all, the US government already has. Total corporate loyalty may not seem so fashionable now- it may not have the familiar and heady appeal of imperialism and nationalism- but you can safely bet that the corporate world will not bail out Uncle Sam in his downturn. They already have their feet firmly planted on many shores. If you don't like foreigners, you could at least pick a really "nationalistic" transnational, like Halliburton.
"I ain going to elect a super liar"
But would you re-elect one? Kerry may be the "Super Liar", surpassing Bush '43, but I haven't been shown any evidence. Could you please list his most telling lies for comparison with those of GW Bush? (A separate thread would be appropriate)
Bush would seem to far surpass Kerry in commanding unquestioning loyalty- But questioning Americans are going to vote for Kerry in large numbers. This will not be out of loyalty, or due to some great political atttraction on Kerry's part. Instead, the polls show that many of these Americans will be voting for Kerry in a last-resort effort to depose an incumbent they consider extremely dangerous to their way of life. You probably think they're all crazy, rabid.
"scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons"
They all hear you loud and clear today. So does the rest of the world, because this is the subtext to the communications and actions of the present administration. An attitude of American exceptionalism and belligerence is now so close to the surface, that everyone around the world is noticing it with alarm. The United States, and her most intimate partner Israel, are overwhelmingly considered the greatest danger to international security (another unsettling product of polls- Ignore them!). This duo can feel the foreboding vibe, you can feel it, but we arm up for invasion, as if still in the age of empires. Could the propaganda and military machine be missing something critical?
Here it is: The increasingly interwoven global-economy-rug can soon and suddenly be yoinked from under the feet of the USA. Our unprecedentedly conspicuous arrogance is very effectively motivating the world in preparation to get along without Dollars, and even without Wall Street. As that potential builds, and it finally comes down to it, Americans will find the greatest conflict between good and evil is not abroad at all, but within our selves, and expressed in our choices: Do we join the world Fellowship as equals, or do we build our own Mordor?
Don't give in to the Darkness, Eluminate.
"heh i dont care"
Spoken like a stereotypical "imperialist", Eluminate. But nationalistic empire not viable today, as in centuries past. The world is changing faster each generation, and now does not react in the same ways. The world economy is no longer the relatively empty canvas as it was during the progressively shorter arcs of empires. now, it's spontaneously and irreversibly integrating.
Once soldiers were the most frequent mass border-crossers, but they have been surpassed by millions of civilians who live, work, and have close friends and relatives worldwide, and who even hold multiple citizenships. This may seem diabolical to someone averse to watching the world outside creep in, but the all-permeating process is in irreversible motion.
Watch as Israel walls herself in, and decide if America should do the same- the only society that will be able to even temporarily withstand the accelerating mingling of humanity will be a fortress state forever at mortal odds with the surrounding world: Hardly the "Sweet Land of Liberty".
As a pragmatist, you might consider surrendering more allegiance to the most powerful corporations, with all heart and soul: After all, the US government already has. Total corporate loyalty may not seem so fashionable now- it may not have the familiar and heady appeal of imperialism and nationalism- but you can safely bet that the corporate world will not bail out Uncle Sam in his downturn. They already have their feet firmly planted on many shores. If you don't like foreigners, you could at least pick a really "nationalistic" transnational, like Halliburton.
"I ain going to elect a super liar"
But would you re-elect one? Kerry may be the "Super Liar", surpassing Bush '43, but I haven't been shown any evidence. Could you please list his most telling lies for comparison with those of GW Bush? (A separate thread would be appropriate)
Bush would seem to far surpass Kerry in commanding unquestioning loyalty- But questioning Americans are going to vote for Kerry in large numbers. This will not be out of loyalty, or due to some great political atttraction on Kerry's part. Instead, the polls show that many of these Americans will be voting for Kerry in a last-resort effort to depose an incumbent they consider extremely dangerous to their way of life. You probably think they're all crazy, rabid.
"scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons"
They all hear you loud and clear today. So does the rest of the world, because this is the subtext to the communications and actions of the present administration. An attitude of American exceptionalism and belligerence is now so close to the surface, that everyone around the world is noticing it with alarm. The United States, and her most intimate partner Israel, are overwhelmingly considered the greatest danger to international security (another unsettling product of polls- Ignore them!). This duo can feel the foreboding vibe, you can feel it, but we arm up for invasion, as if still in the age of empires. Could the propaganda and military machine be missing something critical?
Here it is: The increasingly interwoven global-economy-rug can soon and suddenly be yoinked from under the feet of the USA. Our unprecedentedly conspicuous arrogance is very effectively motivating the world in preparation to get along without Dollars, and even without Wall Street. As that potential builds, and it finally comes down to it, Americans will find the greatest conflict between good and evil is not abroad at all, but within our selves, and expressed in our choices: Do we join the world Fellowship as equals, or do we build our own Mordor?
Don't give in to the Darkness, Eluminate.
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
Me thinks the two World Wars killed the majority of agressive warmongering Europeans so all that is left breeding are the peace-lovers.
My turn. My turn!
I really dont my vote expresses how I feel about US policy not them.
But it is not you who shape American foreign policy it is “them”. America is a superpower today because people used to believe in it. Looking at the Reagan memorial today, I can safely say that at least under Reagan the US commanded not only attention but respect. American power without international respect is no power at all. This is a true sign of power, not this It is those people who don’t care about who are have and are going to kill you. So be cocky, and undeservingly arrogant, everything has it’s yang.
I dont have to satisfy them or bow to their "world opinion" its their opinion not mine and they dont vote I do...
Let me tell you the last federal elections showed us how truly irrelevant your vote really is. Their opinion is more relevant then yours indeed. It is their opinion on the US that allowed 9/11 to happen, it their opinion that puts the US on the minds of millions as the world’s most dangerous state (along with Israel), a nation that demands fear will never receive respect.
hell I dont care if someone percieves me as arrogant thats their view and they can feel it as much as they want but my action will not be guided by "their expectation of how i should act" scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons.
And boy let me tell you, they royally screwed up the arse a great deal many a time. So continue, America’s decline will only accelerate.
I really dont my vote expresses how I feel about US policy not them.
But it is not you who shape American foreign policy it is “them”. America is a superpower today because people used to believe in it. Looking at the Reagan memorial today, I can safely say that at least under Reagan the US commanded not only attention but respect. American power without international respect is no power at all. This is a true sign of power, not this It is those people who don’t care about who are have and are going to kill you. So be cocky, and undeservingly arrogant, everything has it’s yang.
I dont have to satisfy them or bow to their "world opinion" its their opinion not mine and they dont vote I do...
Let me tell you the last federal elections showed us how truly irrelevant your vote really is. Their opinion is more relevant then yours indeed. It is their opinion on the US that allowed 9/11 to happen, it their opinion that puts the US on the minds of millions as the world’s most dangerous state (along with Israel), a nation that demands fear will never receive respect.
hell I dont care if someone percieves me as arrogant thats their view and they can feel it as much as they want but my action will not be guided by "their expectation of how i should act" scrw them iraqis or arabs or some other morons.
And boy let me tell you, they royally screwed up the arse a great deal many a time. So continue, America’s decline will only accelerate.