Quote:
Originally Posted by Termite
or maybe he's just having Peking duck for dinner?:D
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Termite
or maybe he's just having Peking duck for dinner?:D
Not to mention 'Noddy Goes to Toyland' :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
What I found intersesting was an interview that Margaret Throsby was conducting a couple of years ago (for those who listen to ABC FM) and it appeared that the majority of US soldiers did not know the difference between Iraq and Iran, and there was only one currency and everyone spoke 'american'.
Of course if they don't understand, you shout to make it clear:rolleyes:
90% of US citizens do not have a passport.
And it's very cold here in Austria at the moment. :rolleyes:
The sheer size of China and its potential to be a military juggernaut will possibly lead to the amalgamation of nations in response to a perceived threat. Should China continue to militarise and modernise its forces (occuring on a massive scale at present), Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Middle East may form alliances that until now have seemed unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
I fear we have the potential to be entering a dark age soon, politically and environmentally.
It's a terrible thought but we are helping to finance their economy with our purchases of machinery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
On the good side China is one of the few countrys where we actually have a trading surplus.
This is getting to be a juicy sort of discussion.
Peter I am not making any aspertions or criticisms of you but keeping the US dollar down makes it harder for them to buy up things from other countries. A low dollar means you need more of them to buy things in other currencies. It is a clever form of protectionism to hold your currency low as it's buying power is reduced in the world market. It helps your exporters and restricts your importers.
Post WWII the Americans largely financed the reconstruction of the world. They gave money to everyone. Britain actually got more money from the Americans than Germany did. Britain did however spend it on housing and welfare not on wealth producing assets the rest is history.
This goes right to the heart of the question, "who pays for war?" Which always used to be "the loser" thus reparations etc. In this case America won and paid for the war but something interesting happened there were no productive resources in the way of factories and the like in Europe to cover the high demand for reconstruction. As a result most of this American money was going back to America to purchase just about everything.
Really that is a long time ago now and right or wrong it is what they did at that time. It is easy to make better decisions with hindsight.
China is another interesting topic. Did you know that China's economy is
1/6th the size of Japans? Likewise I don't think there is much risk they will go on a rampage to rule asia or anything else like that. It is bad business to bomb your customers. Of course China is going to become a major economic force when that happens is anyones guess. Likewise India also is an emerging economy likely to become a major force. However I don't think America will go away anytime soon. Europe is bedded in it's social democracy way of doing things, this conflict in particular between the French and the Germans will take time. The French badly want to keep their agriculture subsidies. So for Europe to become an economic powerhouse that could dominate the world will take time.
I can't see any rapid change coming about however there is always change and as others have pointed out large forces are in play that could dramatically alter the world we live in. It will be different perhaps but not neccesarily any worse.
Stephen
This is a bit offsided but Americans out there this is my reply to benny laid. The cabbage patch fella. We only love you while we are playing.
Hey benny laid,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
You know why Tasmanians have two heads don’t you?
<o:p></o:p>
It’s so we can have a decent conversation when we go to the mainland!!!
<o:p></o:p>
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, most Americans I know don't like "our" foriegn policies either. I enjoy this forum and learn plenty, even some about woodworking.
I posted a reply yesterday, but for some reason it didn't work. Go figure.
The reply was short, just a thank you for clarification. For the record, most people I know don't like "our" foreign policies either. I enjoy this sight and learn a lot, ...... even a little about woodworking!
Dusty,
Your post worked and is still there. Welcome to the forum. As previously stated, most things that my seem crude to you are only said in jest and you will take a little while to get used to the Aussie humour. Hang about and you will enjoy your time.
Dan
I'm wading in here real late on this topic bit thought I'd have a poke in here before I hit the sack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
I have to fully agree with Surdee on the above and that is a big gripe for me about Americans, but there are good blokes on both sides. And don't give me the wooha that they're the saviour for the whole world or that Bush or any president is the leader of the free world, then you really get me going.
And the baseball World Series, I thought it's only teams in America playing, don't remember seeing China or Greenland playing, so what gives? Or is that part of the "we are the world" thing?
And Wongo, what's wrong with Queenslanders mate? :D
I've made some posts in the past which I've apologised to the bloke I directed it to. But at the end of the day let's all have fun in our shed stuffing up perfectly good bits of wood and help each other out make the stuff ups a bit better, and along the way we can share our Aussie humour beyond the shores of this great brown land.
Mate, I love this country! And let's ditch the national anthem for what I think it should be instead, "Great Southern Land" by Icehouse. :)
Waldo.
"And the baseball World Series, I thought it's only teams in America playing, don't remember seeing China or Greenland playing, so what gives? Or is that part of the "we are the world" thing?"
I was once told that the series was initiated and sponsered by a newspaper called "News of the World" and known as "the World". The "World Series" is named after the paper, so the story goes.
Hopefully, one of the Yank members will be able to confirm, or deny, my information.
G'day RobertWa,
Hey thanks for that. That puts to bed something that bugged the heck out of me, and all based on a perception rather than fact. :)
And anyone watch Planet of the Apes tonight? At the ending Buck Rogers got back home to find it over run by monkeys. Nice twist. It is isn't it, true I mean? And so much body hair on them too. :D Looked a bit like Zed.
An example of how you don't necessarily need an army to control other countries. When Britain and France invaded Suez in response to Nasser's nationalisation of the canal, it took them about a day to occupy Suez, and basically were finished by teatime. The US, this was when the senior and very bent Kennedy's anti English influence prevailed, forced Britain to withdraw by threatening huge financial penalties (can't quite remember what, something to do with the gold standard and war loans I think)
The Poms packed up and went home. The US was determined to finish off the remnants of Empire and to filled the power vacuum created.
Not saying what they did at Suez was right or wrong, but it was an enormous change in the way the world worked, led to the fall of Eden (who was quite ill too) and not one shot fired - by the Seppo's that is, any only a few by the Eygptians too.
Thats a bit like the Vic bike race, the sun tour, is that sponsered by the Herald Sun or Suntour the Jap gear people??Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert WA
Bodgy
That's an interesting summary of the Suez crisis. Is it possible that the US may have had an eye on what the Soviets were doing in Hungary at the same time?
Driver, absolutely. The timing was really bad for the Poms, Frogs and of course Hungarians. THe Seppos couldn't just condemn Stalins invasion and subsequent slaughter of the Hungarians whilst the FrogPoms were doing a similar thing in Eygpt - without the brutality.
Whilst the Seppos couldn't get a security council vote, as the FrogPOms had seats and thus vetoes, they did get a General Assembly vote up 65-4 condemning the invasion.
This wasn't what caused the withdrawal tho. That was the big financial stick. I've read all of Churchills biographys' and one on Eden, and thats were the info comes from.
Partly US distaste for Empire and colonies, often expressed by their Sec of State John Foster Dulles (of CIA fame) but also an opportunity to finally stuff an old rival. Which they did. Eisenhower was originally onside with the PomFrogs and Israelies but was talked around by the Sec of State.
A bit ironic really as the US had its own 'colonies', ie Philipines, Guam and other Pacific Islands, Okinawa, West Germany etc.
The following quotes are interesting:
At the same time, ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[IMG] /><st1:City w:st=[/IMG]Suez</st1:City> was the last occasion when the European powers might have withstood and brought down a <ST1:place w:st="on">Third World</ST1:place> dictator who had shown no interest in international agreements, except where he could profit from them. Nasser's victory at <st1:City w:st="on">Suez</st1:City> had among its fruits the overthrow of the pro-Western regime in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, the Egyptian occupation of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">Yemen</st1:country-region>, and the encirclement of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Israel</ST1:place></st1:country-region> which led to the Six Day War - and the bills were still coming in when I left office.
As I came to know more about it, I drew four lessons from this sad episode. First, we should not -get into a military operation unless we were determined and able to finish it. Second, we should never again find ourselves on the opposite side to the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> in a major international crisis affecting <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Britain</ST1:place></st1:country-region>'s interests. Third, we should ensure that our actions were in accord with international law. And finally, he who hesitates is lost.
Margaret Thatcher
The events of October 1956 nevertheless helped to renew momentum for European integration. <st1:country-region w:st="on">Hungary</st1:country-region> reminded western Europeans of the nature and proximity of the Soviet regime; <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:place w:st="on">Suez</ST1:place></st1:City> made them resentful of American tutelage. Inspired by Monnet and the Belgian economist Paul-Henri Spaak, “the Six” drafted the Euratom Treaty for a joint nuclear energy agency and the Treaty of Rome to expand the coal and steel community into a full-fledged Common Market. The treaties were signed on March 25, 1957, and went into effect on Jan. 1, 1958. The European Economic Community provided for internal and external tariff coordination, free movement of labour and capital, and a common agricultural pricing policy. Integration theorists hoped that international economic institutions would sustain a momentum leading to political unity as well.
Encyclopedia Brittanica
It's fascinating how these events change the course of history.
Aplogies to members who are not interested, I do tend to go on.
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
I thought you didn't like using those things. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Cut & paste from MS office product gotchya.:D
My Mum was born in Hobart, lol so I have 1 and 1/2 heads anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang's son
When AFL went down there they made a loss cos they sold only one family ticket..........Crowd was 8,000.
Next time they wised up and charged per head?
Aussie can make fun of themselves if there is a joke in it....
Speaking of jokes? The New Zealand cricket team springs to mind? and the Poms in Pakistan? Or heaven forbit that silly round ball game which is past a joke.......
Wasn't me, it was Mr Gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Funny thing I selected 'clear formatting' before posting and also hit the 'no format' button on the Forum editor.
Well spotted Cliff, like a dingo onto a dead roo. Life is a series of paradoxes.
Bodgy
I don't want to drag this on for too long but it's worth pointing out that this thread is entitled "American Bashing" and your first post - using the example of the Suez crisis - bashes away pretty hard. It implies that the US motives for applying pressure to the British and French sprang from Joseph Kennedy's well-known anti-British sentiments and a desire to dominate the world stage. Incidentally, Kennedy was a Democrat and Eisenhower a Republican. Did Kennedy really have that much influence with the President?
Your second post - a bit more measured, I reckon - acknowledges my point: that the Americans had a very real concern about the Hungarian invasion. They were able to take the moral high ground with the Soviets in the UN because they had actively pressurised Britain and France (and Israel) over the invasion of Egypt.
Whilst you and I find this interesting, I hesitate to go on much more, cause I'm sure most won't.
May I make just two points? Firstly, Eisenhower was not originally so stuck on compelling the PomFrogs to go home, it was the state department that was gung ho. This department, like most public service enclaves was a sort of old boys club. Kennedy Senior, who I think was once UK Ambassador had on-going influence at State. General high level power and influence was demonstrated by getting his boy JFK up over Tricky Dicky.
Secondly, I didn't think my first post was bashing the US too much. Suez is historical fact, very few nations act out of altruism, its not unique to the Seppo's. This event did mark the final end to the already moribund British Empire, and the beginning of the American Empire, finally consolidated at the death of European Communism.
Would anyone deny that we currently have an American Empire, possibly more cultural and economic rather than military? Did this happen by accident?
Sorry again for being boring.
Isn't this all just a part of The Great Game?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Don't underestimate the capacity of our members to be interested in bloody nearly anything ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
He was the US Ambassador in the UK during WWII - when FDR was President. FDR, like the Kennedys, was a Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
What JFK's election may have demonstrated was his father's wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
What I took issue with was what looked like an over-simplification, attributing America's position on Suez to Joe Kennedy and a desire for world domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Mate, don't be mealy-mouthed. If you really thought you were being boring, you wouldn't post. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Ah yes, what thread on American Bashing would be complete without a bit of Kennedy Bashing.
I happened to be in Boston in '95, around the time of the great matriarch Rose Kennedy's 105th (and last) birthday.
When asked the predictable question about what she attributed to her long life, she replied:
" I smoke a small cigar every day, I have one small glass of red wine each evening, and I never let Teddy drive."
It must be true, I was there!
:D :D :D
P
Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.
Disagree Driver.
Its the modern day equivalent of those other Empires. With Nuclear weapons, world military domination is no longer possible. If you look at these other Empires, trade and wealth creation was what it was all about. The Poms ruled the waves, because they are an Island sure, but also to protect the trade routes and their commerce. India was the jewel of Empire cause cheap goods like raw cotton came out, shipped to UK, elaborately transformed into clothes etc at the Mills, then shipped back to this huge market. All by the Hon Company who had a legal monopoly on all UK-India shipping.
Whats the most imortant development in last 30 yrs? IT and Comms? Have a look at the software companies, the processor companies, the computer manufacturers. See anything in common? Yep, Global US businesses.
Its same old same old.
Driver, I think this is fascinating stuff, but the boring apology was for people who don't. Theres only about 6 of us on this 'politics' thread, but far higher numbers of viewers.
Now there's seven.
The US has around 50% of the global military spend.
The Atomic weapons point is valid, even thoughtful, however their spend is fairly impressive.
The US is like the giant in the old fairy stories, not much delicacy about their activites, they walk around in big boots, but I sure wouldn't like to get stomped by them.
I find it amusing to watch the antics of the naive, who want to play in the modern Great games, but don't like it when the US doesn't play fair or locks them away in Cuba. I guess that's why we invented lawyers.
And speaking about thrall, two names spring to mind not mentioned as yet: Alexander and Ghingis Khan. Both used pretyy effective tactics and held sway economically, until they were gobbled by by time.
Unfortunately, we won't be around to watch much into this century
Now please make the point for Portugal, and compare and contrast their dominion to that of Spain.
Regards
Greg
A 7th, any takers for 8?
Can't contribute much on Portugal, British history is my area of interest.
Can say that in the 'rush for Africa' whilst the Portugese were a minor player, they apparently were amongst the most brutal. Not the most, that accolade goes to Belgium over Germany, by a long head.
What was there? Mozambique, Portugese West Africa, the Latin American countries, did they have a bit of the Sahara?
I need to google it.
While we're at it, we may as well mention Ghengis Khan and Alexander both who had a little thrall over their rather large expanses of domain.
They suceeded both militarily and economically.
I must admit Ghenghis and his sons were a little tough on those who opposed him, but there were no media cameras (or lawyers) around at the time, although it probably wouldn't have worried him much in any event.
Both provided a general peace for those inhabitants who were lucky enough to remain alive in the areas they controlled.
Both dominions were swallowed by by time and bring this back to the topic, I guess we won't be around to see what happens to the US in the next 5oo years, But I bet they still manage some little part of Cuba.
But I still struggle with Portugal, yes, I've been to Rio, and I accept that Brazil is the world's 4th largest country....but really was there much to begin with or to conquer? Darius was more of a hurdle I think, as was China inside their wall
Regards
Greg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
It's not.
John Company was quite literally the British government in disguise. It had its own armies, intelligence service, judiciary and all the other trappings of government. The government in the UK recruited the best and brightest people to work for the East India Company. It was so important to them that - even in that bastion of nepotism and privilege - you couldn't get a post with John Company unless you were seriously talented. Money, position and your family name were not enough.
Now, for all Bill Gates' commercial muscle, no-one has yet accused him of putting together an army and a judicial system.
Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.
A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions. Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.
It's a colourful argument to compare US power and influence in the 21st century with the imperial power of the British and Roman Empires but it's simplistic and inaccurate. By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences. History provides pointers and indicators but it doesn't paint pictures of the future.
Driver
a number of your assertions are patently incorrect. Lets examine them.
1. The British East India Company. These guys were well down the list. The truly priviledged (rich) and talented went into the proper army or navy. The also rans went into John company. John company transmogrified into the Indian army, who continued the tardition of the 'second drawer' John Company had a number of disputes with the British establishment probably leading to the segue into the Indian Army.
Quote..Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.
You gotta be kidding! Or are you just winding me up? Cuba (exploding cigars), Guatemala, Latin America in general, in partic the Contra's, go back further United Fruit, Segregation, ML King, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Iraq, Panama, Gaddafi's Mrs, the Big MAC and on and on.
but it's simplistic and inaccurate
Have I offended you in some way? Honest, she said she was 18.
Quote
By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences.
Ok, Please explain the real influences. Bated breath for the Portugese heavies.
Quote
Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.
A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions.
You are winding me up ! And I fell for it.
OK, I'll play too. What has some loony monk from Florence in the 15th century got to say about mistakes and history, even tho he was condemned.
Gee this is fun!
I was under the impression that there wasn't a "British" army in India until after the Indian Mutiny.
Before that, as Driver says, the joint was run by the British East India Company and it's army.
Bodgy
I'm at a loss to know where to start!
But I'll have a go. We'll start at the end. I don't understand your reference to a 15th century Florentine monk. If this is intended to be a response to my quote from Santayana, then I should point out that I am referring to George Santayana. He was a 19th century philosopher - born in Spain and brought up in the US. The quote about those who ignore the mistakes of history etc is actually quite well known.
The Portugese certainly had an empire. It was mainly based on their extensive naval explorations during the 14th and 15th centuries. Evidence of their influence is still visible in (for example) Oman and India. They only recently relinquished their ownership of Macao and they had plenty of contact with the Japanese.
Where do you get the idea that the people who were recruited into the East India Company were second-raters? Or that the better talent went into the army and navy? The overwhelming weight of the opinions I've read on the subject leaves no doubt about the outstanding quality of the Indian Civil Service which is what John Company actually became. The Indian Army in the 1920s and 1930s wasn't real good but that was mainly a consequence of the enormous losses of good officers in WWI. Before that it was a very efficient fighting force. And, actually, during WWII - particularly in Burma - elements of the old Indian Army did a helluva good job.
The only comment I'll make about your diatribe on the US and its various adventures is this: you have been making a case that the US is currently an imperial power similar to the old manifestations of empire. Your examples of their failings during the 60s, 70s and 80s have no relevance to that. Except - perhaps - for this: they have demonstrated that, as a nation, they can change. Black Americans are treated far better now than they were during the period before and just after Martin Luther King's assassination. The change has come about through democratic pressure - people power, if you like. Can you imagine that happening in 19th century Britain?
Finally, you're obviously a bit upset. That's a pity. I didn't intend to disturb your equilibrium.
If you think Portugal was important, don't forget the Dutch, or the Prussians, or the French with or without Napolean, yes and I'll accept Belgium, sort of.
But I'm still in awe at the achievments and the history of China.
........It's great to be an anglophile, and a USphile, I'm one and have a great admiration for the still upper lip of the British beaurocracy that held the British Army and navy together in their global forays, the concept of nobless oblige, and the raw enthusiasm of the US entrepreneurs.
But you've got admire the Chinese, who frequently (and still) keep their fighting and beating up of neighbours within the family.
Kublai Khan was seduced and I'm wondering if the same stratgy will enable them to take over the world through seduction. It's working at the moment, or at least with the buyers from our major retail chains.
Greg
"In the family" in the same sense that it's ok for us to flog Kiwis!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
Actually what about the Mongol Hordes?? Ghengis (Chinggis) Kahn is Mongolia's man of the Millenium, and rightly so too!!
cheers,
P:D
Don't mention the rugby codes, I'm not sure who is flogging whom.
But the Chinese appear to love nothing better than some internecine in-house mutilation and mayhem. We gave them some alternative targets during the Boxer rebellion and the Japanese were a mite problematic during the 1930-40s, but after they kicked the warlords out in 1949, they again went on to repeat the old leadership favourite task of keeping the population in check through government promoted revolution.
Ghengis could be my man of the millennium also. His minions did a good job around the middle east, even getting the Pope of the time to think he may have relation to Prester John and seek him as an allie. But as they say, the first generation makes it, the second consolidates, and the third wastes it. This was certainly true of Ghengis.
Back to the US, I'm not sure which generation the US is up to at this point of time, and I don't think even they know what they are wasting.
Their global actions remind me of the difference between a prissy anal retentive wood worker who never makes a mistake, and using the minimum of wood, creates a prefect article, and a hyperactive woodworker, who makes many mistakes, uses up a lot of resources but gets the job done in the end.
The prissy laywer type is great for the environment, but I know with whom I'd rather have a drink.
Regards
Greg
Didn't the East India Company play a part in America eventually seeking independence?