just a heads up guys jvd70 actually lives in Europe so he just didn't write it down correctly but feel free to disregard his posts on account of them.

Truth addict, I think you will find popular support for NATO in most if not all NATO members in Eastern Europe. You presuppose there is an ideal kind of planet in which peace reigns but you can't explain how to get there from here. What I mean to say is that capitalist liberal democracy isn't ideal and certainly there's enough that goes wrong but I'll sign up to any alternative that would work better. There don't appear to be any and the far left really does not have any alternatives in store for the political economy of the world in which we live. Study the party programs of the far left parties in Europe and they don't even seem to have a grasp on what it takes to create employment.

Posted by: jvd at December 29, 2006 8:00 AM

as posted by jvd

"The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet "

For your information, europe is not a country, please try and remember

Posted by: phriar at December 27, 2006 9:40 AM

jingoe joe,

your comments remind me of what David Sirota recently wrote about Thomas Friedman and his apologetic articles on the "global economy":

"He doesn't want us wondering why the global economy has been integrated with complex intellectual, patent and copyright protections, but no similar protections for wages, human rights, or environmental concerns. Because, you see, if we asked those questions, his entire premise would collapse like a house of cards."

Your comments remind me alot of that and Sirota's comment in response has a logic that is important in addressing it. Without putting my finger squarely on it can you see it; can you understand it? If not, then youre helpless. If you can then you are on the road to recovery.

Posted by: truth addict at December 15, 2006 12:17 PM

"Corruption is nothing new but at least democracies have checks and balances to balance the interests of society."

What good are the "checks and balances" if they are not implemented? If they were implemented then Bush and every president before him since the end of WW2 would be behind bars? If they were implemented then our government policies would be radically different.

What good are they if policymakers continue to make decisions opposite of what the public - even with lack of information on the topics - wants?

How healthy is our "democracy" if the political system is heavily flawed and the media is "embedded" with them?

"The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet n direct competition with itself."

First, I am sure you meant Japan and that you know that Europe is a continent and not a country.

Second, the comment is full of inaccuracies and bullshit propaganda that is nothing but nationalistic nonsense; and to go over the strings tied to the Marshall plan, integration under US auspices, etc would be too much for this forum.

"The US has been such a positive example that all Eastern European nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union chose to join up with the way the US has organized the world."

Not their people. The governments and they got aid-with-strings-attached. Available internal government docs and related groups like RAND have shown that the grouping their economies and military systems under our umbrella of power is for hegemonic purposes that are not bringing prosperity and freedom to the people itself.

Again, the predisposition of your comments would require too much time to expose as fraudulent, so I will stick with pointing out that government relations are not necessarily representation of peoples opinions and choices.

I wouldnt say that our hegemonic policies are "positive" unless you ask: positive for whom?

"As democracies and members of NATO they look for and want US leadership."

Again, who is they and what is your evidence? You are making all these empty statements with no supporting evidence. The predispositions are so absurd, but typical of jingoists, that the time needed to expose them is beyond what I am willing to committ too. You have your bullshit agenda so I could care less about trying to change your views and if anyone reading wants to look deeper into it then I am confident in their ability to see through the crap your pratteling on about.

"After the cold war, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia and other allies against the Soviet Union started to turn towards democracy. Aren't those great things? The US has achieved amazing results."

What interesting examples to choose. A closer look at them during the Cold War shows some interesting observations, especially Chile (which can be summed up with one date: 09/11/1973).

Indonesia tried democracy too and the US made damn sure to stop Sukarno.

South Korea was a pretty ugly government, especially during the Cold War.

What exactly is it that you are trying to prove? What did the US achieve with supporting the oppressive South Korean governments, killing Chilean democracy and mass-murder in Indonesia and East Timor?

"You focus on the negative; if you want negative look to Russia or China where human rights are routinely trampled and where the 'hegemony of interests' cuts of the gas to millions of people in midwinter and poisons them with polonium if they don't dance to the Kremlin's tunes."

Right, focusing on our negatives is harmful to the narcissist traits you are demonstrating. Look at the positive in us and the negatives in them. Right. Thanks for making that point so eloquently.

We can take a closer look at the so-called "positives" you mentioned, but even if they are absolutely true and accurate that would have no impact on the negatives. What value do you get by ignoring the negatives; the skeletons in your closet? If you are a worker that is production based, do you focus on your accuracies and ignore your mistakes or do you focus on your errors in order to correct them? You are coming off as the typical narcissist who wants positive attention all the time and gets super defensive when any constructive criticisms are mentioned.

"You focus on the 'hegemony of interests' that fuel your car and the vast armies of supplies and logistics that supply stores and keep billions of people alive in densely populated areas around the world. What would you replace it with while keeping all those people fed, clothed, employed..."

Wow, what a pathetic way to distract the comments into a direction you want it to head. So if we focused more of resources in funding a better and more productive education and health care system as opposed to arms industries and oil companies that would be bad? You are asserting that global hegemony is the only way to have jobs and security. Again, to expose the predispositions one by one and then point out a more rational approach is beyond what im willing to commit too. At the most I have provided you enough rope to hang yourself in the eyes of others.

If we utilized wind, solar, hydrogen and agricultural products for fuel and energy would that be bad? What if we used land fills like South Korea is now doing? If we did something that would be better for the enviornment, provide more domestic jobs and conserved our use of petroleum what would be wrong with that? Furthermore, would it really bad if our government did not inact policies that make us less secure and wasted our resources on military dominance?

Your comment comes down to you asserting that we should ignore our flaws but if we do look at them we should come to the absurd conclusion that they are helping us and not hurting us. Too bad that most dont buy that and understand that you can cover cow shit in strawberries but were not going to eat it.

Addressing our problems is not hatred or unpatriotic.

Addressing our over-consumption of materials and resources is not a bad thing.

Addressing the problems of our governmental policies that are anti-democratic, run counter to sovereignty, independence, justice, etc is not a bad thing.

Saying we should not wage wars to control vast oil supplies in order to have political influence on others is not a bad thing.

Again, the unwillingness or inability to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others - aka hypocrisy - is a chief problem in the arguments you are poorly trying to advance. Not only do you intentionally misrepresent reality to make our government look better but dissecting the rhetoric and applying to others would only highlight that youre a hypocrite.

Robert Trivers made the observation that people and some animals have a group mentality. That people in particular social groups will generalize the positives about themselves and generalize the negatives of others. Your comment clearly demonstrated that to a tee. Spouting lies and myths to justify our crimes and flaws is not a sign of nobility; its a sign of intentional ignorance and callousness.

Whether the problem is global warming, other enviornmental issues, prospects of nuclear annhilation, economic injustice, an array of social justice issues, wars, imperialism, racism, sexism we should be decent enough to be honest with ourselves and others. Making excuses to protect the status quo or ongoing injustices may be something you want to dabble in but not me and apparently not too many others either.

The far left has a pretty clear understanding of what is wrong and the solutions for them. I am not going to trap myself in discussing them with you. For those who are interested they can easily find them by doing simple research.

Posted by: truth addict at December 15, 2006 12:06 PM

"truth addict" you seem to have a fundamental problem with the world and humanity, Churchill said 'it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'. Corruption is nothing new but at least democracies have checks and balances to balance the interests of society. The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet n direct competition with itself. Is having Toyota become the largest car manufacturer really in the US best interest? The US has been such a positive example that all Eastern European nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union chose to join up with the way the US has organized the world. As democracies and members of NATO they look for and want US leadership. After the cold war, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia and other allies against the Soviet Union started to turn towards democracy. Aren't those great things? The US has achieved amazing results.

You focus on the negative; if you want negative look to Russia or China where human rights are routinely trampled and where the 'hegemony of interests' cuts of the gas to millions of people in midwinter and poisons them with polonium if they don't dance to the Kremlin's tunes.

You focus on the 'hegemony of interests' that fuel your car and the vast armies of supplies and logistics that supply stores and keep billions of people alive in densely populated areas around the world. What would you replace it with while keeping all those people fed, clothed, employed...

Whose textbook of a better world are you reading? Karl Marx? The Koran? At least capitalism and democracy have proven themselves; your evil hegemony of interests sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad's 'global arrogances' don't you think?

Posted by: jvd at December 14, 2006 6:18 PM