To caricature: why bomb Saddam?
Well there was the small, insignificant issue of a nation controlled by a ruthless dictator invading a sovreign (and friendly) nation, killing many, and positioning itself to attack a much more globally-significant sovreign (friendly) nation. But yes, both nations did have a bit of black goop below their ground. However, let's not forget that probably 2/3+ of all countries in the world supported our actions (at least in words), with a higher percentage of "global" countries supporting the US' actions. But those are just minor points, of course.
Why bomb Serbia (illegally, UNO voted against)? A way to get a grip on economical interests in Middle Europe countries, which otherwise can go straight to EU.
I'm not sure what UNO is, whether it refers to Pizzaria Uno or the University of New Orleans, but as far as I can tell it's probably the UN... whose laws America does not need to follow. Last time I checked, the US is a sovreign nation, and the UN does not define what is legal for Serbian soil. I have no idea how to respond to the getting a grip on middle europe countries... they can go to the EU anyway, they could completely ignore the US 100%. Heaven forbid, they may want to "go straight" to the US... (note: I did not support the bombings at all)
Simply, US are accused to sometimes apply the politics: "we do this, because we're the best and we can, period."
I keep hearing this, but yet from what I understand, the US consistantly ranks as less nationalist than many european countries, many latin countries, many asian countries. Perhaps it is our economic/cultural might combined with our seeming lack of care for national pride that frustrates countries with less might and more pride?
No, the celebrators might be better informed than the US, I think that's the problem. The US television is biased, and the average American (because of this, or in addition of this) is not very well informed about everything that happens abroad
And state-run media in other countries is not at all biased. Suure. Perhaps they're just biased in the directions where you are biased, so you don't notice the bias. Yes, American main-stream media frequently leaves out a good deal of information, or misinforms, and probably occasionally disinforms, but I seen no proof that the media in the countries where the celebration occurred have a better media, or a less biased media. And yes, I've traveled all over ther world, so I have seen a great deal of media.
Do you understand that the 70s' crisis was caused by the Kippur war? Do you understand nearly all what happened to the oil prices was driven by politics in the Middle East, do you?
Do you understand oil price is crucial to economy (world economy, and US economy along) ?
Well it was, but if you actually bothered to look at some statistics, you'd see that oil isn't the economy-killer you make it out to be. In fact, labor is a much more significant to all Western economies at this point. Take a look at this:
Prior to the embargo of 1973-74, total energy expenditures constituted 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), the share of petroleum expenditures was just under 5 percent and natural gas expenditures accounted for 1 percent. The price shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in these shares rising dramatically to 14 percent, 8 percent, and 2 percent respectively, by 1981. Since that time, the shares have fallen consistently over the last two decades to current levels of about 7 percent for total energy, while petroleum has fallen even further to 3.5 percent and natural gas to just over 1 percent. The shares were lower during 1998, when oil and natural gas prices were lower, but have risen recently in response to higher oil and natural gas prices.
Through the use of hedging, oil price shocks are not the economy-killer they used to be. There is more oil available in the world now than there ever was, and it is historically around the cheapest it has ever been. I have some friends who are energy traders, and now that we have an efficient market in energy, recessions like the one we saw in the 1970s are far less likely to occur.
Don't you understand that the IMF, World Bank and some other international institutions are heavily under American control, forcing US libertarian-type politics in the throat of other countries?
I have to say this is my favorite argument. The IMF and World Bank are forcing these countries to take money. They're invading at gunpoint and giving millions and millions of dollars to countries that don't want it, then they're forcing them to privatise. Blather blather. Many (most?) of the countries the IMF and World Bank support are democratic countries who voted the rulers who asked for support in. Clearly there are many bad moves the IMF and World Bank have taken, and I am strongly against both, but that's another story...
Or rather you don't understand at all why anyone on Earth wouldn't want US libertarian stance "state is bad, privatise everything", do you?
Not even the US privatises everything. There are many state-run enterprises in countries that receive IMF/World Bank aid. Next argumennt.
Let's take a recent example, Kyoto treaty: you think it's ok that the US sign an agreement, and then withdraw their signature, just because it's suddenly unconvenient to them ?
See, you first sign an agreement to say "this is the agreement we're going to bring to our collective legislatures for vote" then you take it and vote on it. The US voted no by a 99-0 margin in the senate (I read that the last time that kind of vote occurred was the vote to help France and Britain in WWII, but that could be quite wrong). Anyway, only one country ratified the agreement the US signed, and that was Romania. Perhaps you should be angry at France for doing the same thing the US did.
Milosevic was also famous for, on the international scene (sign and lie).
Yet our president and congress never signed the agreement, so they did not lie at all. This is getting ridiculously off topic.
I mean, other Western countries certainly do extremely condemnable moves in international politics. But when they do, most of their citizen don't go and say "what?! we are angels! we are so helpful!", and they are not arrogant.
Maybe that's because they're not as helpful as the US, and they don't have as many opportunities to look angelic? Most of us are not arrogant, and our generosity is unparalleled in the modern era.
Here is the key: much of the world is mourning thousands of American innocent deaths, but is celebrating the slap in the face of the American over-arrogance (which since W. Bush has even significantly increased), at the same time.
I doubt that. When 10,000+ innocent people die in a carefully-orchestrated murder, anyone who remotely resembles human would stop, pause, and offer aid. I thank from the bottom of my heart those in the international community who have a shred of respect for this tragedy. I wish not to speak or interact with those of you who have no respect.
[ Parent ]