US embassies attacked

Yes and no... you wont catch me jumping up and down shouting Rule Britannia at the last night of the proms.

But I do enjoy some of our history, and I feel sad by some of it, especially how we have sometimes due to our own arrogance let down those who depended on us.

I am proud of me, my relatives and close friends, whose achievements I have had some involvement in. The rest I am "happy for" but not so much proud.

Dam Big Mikey was right Pedantic is such an ugly colour.. we need an AA type group for this

Raz
 
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm

This article explains it. It amounts to the forced break up for the British Empire and trade agreements by FDR. FDR was of course quite right to demand it but man of the old families in the UK lost enormous wealth because of this. However, with this and the terms of the marshal plan it ensured that British power was broken forever. Personally I am vehemently anti-imperialist so to me this represents the best of the US.

The Bear.
 
A very interesting piece and all though contains a bias tone all the way through it is very informative.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing here is the conclusion.

------

On April 12, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States, patriot, and enemy of the British Empire, died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia. Almost immediately, British agents moved to obliterate Roosevelt's policies and his postwar plans.
Orders that were being prepared for U.S. ships and marines to take Hong Kong and turn it over to the Chinese, were aborted. Other plans to prevent the French from retaking Indochina were cancelled, and American troops in the area were told to stand aside. The imperial flags went back up, as Churchill had been demanding, all over the world.

Later that same month, in San Francisco, the American delegation to the United Nations conference voted against proposals that were aimed at placing the British and French colonial possessions under international supervision and with a definite timetable for independence. America, said delegation leader Harold Stassen, had but one true ally, the British, and we must always stand by her side. The United Nations, taken over by a pack of British agents, including Julian Huxley, soon became a tool for British imperial interests.

In August, President Truman, manipulated by the British agent Henry Simpson, dropped atomic bombs that Roosevelt never planned to use on a nation already prepared to surrender, claiming to ``save'' American lives in an invasion of Japan--which FDR and his top military coofftopicnders knew was unncessary.

Not one of the economic development projects proposed by Roosevelt and already in planning stages, ever saw the light of day.

Roosevelt had failed to develop a leadership cadre to carry on without him. This was, in part, because of his own leadership style, which tended to centralize important decision-making in himself and which often manipulated even his closest aides against each other. Ultimately, he found that aides, like Hurley, were unable to generate ideas or policy. He groomed no political successor, and within the patriotic faction which had, sometimes reluctantly, been forced to follow his leadership, there was no one who could hold a candle to FDR.

But, Roosevelt was also unable, because of his own limited comprehension of the history of the ideas that informed his thinking, to explain them in their most profound sense to others. He was a patriot, with great instincts, and human compassion, but he had an imperfect understanding of the history of the conflict that he found himself in the middle of: The battle between the American republican tradition and British oligarchism. Those closest to him, often themselves infected with the disease of anglophilia, failed to understand this fight; and without him present, they were easy pickings for skilled British operatives.
 
That's an argument but I'm not entirely convinced It's entirely accurate. America isn't an empire in the conventional sense.

The Bear.

.
 
Well that's debatable. It wasn't uncommon for conquered rulers to be left in power within their kingdoms so long as they pledged allegiance to their new over lords or for a puppet regime to be installed. Which is pretty much what the USA does. It also hasn't shied away from expanding it's military presence across the globe. In fact the only places the USA doesn't have a military presence of some sort is in Russia or China. And then there's the pervasive lobbying of foreign governments to adopt US style laws and treaties with a heavy bias in favour of the USA.
 
Well I think all American noble declarations should come with the following disclaimer.
"Where it doesn't conflict with our interests and it's not an election year." If you tack that on to the end of every document and presidential speech you'll get a pretty fair account of America. They have high principles, it's just they find it very hard to stick to them when there's a buck to be made. British government has atleast always been a shower of self interested gits. So you know where you stand with them.

The Bear.
 
Isn't it a nations government's job to be looking after the self interest of the nation?
Off course you should help others when possible, e.g Sierra Leone but its not your primary task.

Raz
 
Noooooooo, government should reflect the values and aspirations of a nation. Self interest is exactly why we have a succession of crappy governments doing what is thinks best for the poor ignorant little people (which amazingly turns out to be in the interest of the biggest donors).

The Bear.
 
Ah I see, I was looking at your statement from a foreign policy aspect.

" British government has atleast always been a shower of self interested gits."
Often its the case that programmes and schemes launche by succesive governments, have the best intentions and objective but rarely the results to match.

Raz
 
Foreign policy as well. Must of US/UK foreign policy is dictated by commerical interests. Look at the pandering to Saudi Arabia. US/UK turn a blind eye for oil and arms sales. US/UK turns a blind eye to China for trade.

The problem is that it should be entirely transparent who is getting access to MP/Congressmen/Senators etc. Every non-state security meeting should be recorded and available for scrutiny. Even if they is a time lag in the publication it would still reduece the blatant cronyism and corruption going on.


The Bear.
 
Well healthy business equates to a healthy economy, which in turn “in most cases” equates to a richer society, so Foreign policy should be in these interests. It is Distasteful at times possibly. Hypocritical at times definitely no arguments there.

Saudi Arabia like you mentioned, Bahrain too.

Yes it should be transparent who is trying to influence who. I think in the UK anyway, we have a reasonably healthy catalogue of meetings etc, though you won’t get to here what there saying between each other, in private offices. But that’s what that’s for, back channels are a necessity as the evidence shows, especially in foreign policy. I mean this between elected officials only, not business and politicians. Lobby groups, lobbyists etc should be out in the open as well.

The responsibility of transparency lies with both the population actually caring, a structure which allows freedom of information and journalism being allowed freedom to inquire, which it is. Expenses scandal etc


Though mostly im talking from a UK perspective, I have not spent enough time living in other countries to comment.

Raz
 
Just gonna chime in here again without having thoroughly read the last several pages, but I'd like to express my agreement (and increase my post count) with exposing the true nature of governments. In fact, and this may have even been mentioned, the U.S.A. is actually listed as a corporation. In Latin, the word 'government' actually means 'to control'. Shouldn't it have been 'to serve'? Many people, if not most, actually believe that governments are there only to serve and protect them when really, no one (rather, far majority) in this world will do anything for you unless they get something in return. Everything in the world is coated with "double standardized" policies to benefit and protect those in power, i.e. UN, NATO, NWO, etc.

I'm not implying that every single government employee shares this mentality. In fact, I feel confident that 95-99% of them genuinely believe they're trying to protect those who need it. I'm just not a fan of governments, period. Not American, not British, not Saudi, not Pakistani, not Klingon, none.
 
Something I find, a bit interesting is that we use the term, they and them.
But who are they and them?
There people, human beings not some different species.

In our case USA/UK, we vote for them. We vote for us. I don't know how easy it is to run for any sort of office in the USA but I know in the UK its not that hard, outside of govt ofc.. but for MP local council etc.

The opportunity is there, you just need to make the door.


Or is it a case of people start of like this, with all the good intentions in the world then once there in, the evils that be get hold of them?

Raz
 
When I personally say "them", it's in reference to literally them, the governments. It's the same as if you're working at a retail store and you encounter an angry customer because of a poor product your store sold. Although you didn't sell it, the customer is upset with you because you're still a representative of the company. It's not your fault but it's your responsibility and duty to do what you can to change your upset customer's mind.

Government employees are no different. To be more precise, "them" can be aimed directly at those whose major decisions actually negatively affect the masses and as many of us know, the recent worldwide protests against the 1%'ers.

I believe in some cases some people elected into any political office will enter with good intentions and may become corrupted by the evils as you suggested, but I'm moreso a believer of the majority of them being puppets. It's not surprising that most presidents of the U.S., both Republicans and Democrats alike, seem to go back on nearly every word they promise. We always end up going to war and ultimately, the world's true problems are deliberately ignored in the name of self-interest and wealth.

While we may all still be people, many of the people in power let their humanity go a long time ago. You're not going to be a billionaire in the U.S. unless you've got it in you to screw someone over.
 
That's a pretty cynical view of success. Also it is a bit false, you can be successful without screwing over everyone you come in contact with. Sure there are winners and losers, but that's the nature of free market societies. In the US the system was designed to encourage entrepreneurial spirit. If you have too much government interference and "they" start picking winners and losers then you lose the incentive to develop new ideas and markets. Russian Communism didn't fare so well under that kind of system due to corruption and cronyism. So IMO the lesser of the two evils is a free market system with limited Government involvement. When a corporation or individual succeeds then many more people are employed and the economy is positively impacted.
 
Defence of the realm and foreign affairs,
Protection of children, and the vulnerable
Legislation and up holding of justice

Thats were government should end.
Business and government should be separated, government should listen to business if it feels something is really setting them back.

But it should not try and pick who the next president will be, and politicians should not be looking for hand outs in return.

Meh.. the inner Milton Friedman in me can't go away sorry

Raz
 
Back
Top